Letter to Europe

[wardmd2]

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!

I

 

[wardmd]

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.

Okay, let's see if I get this...

You DIDN'T say "only sanctions", is THAT what you're saying NOW?

I DIDN'T show you a quote from the U.N. Secretary-General in which HE discusses the need for the U.N. "peace-keeping" forces to be prepared for "FULL COMBAT"?

That's what YOU mean by ME twisting your words?

Oh, forgive me...

I'll try not to point out the fallacies of your statements in the future (not).

It's so much more intellectually stimulating when you just take your ball and go home (a.k.a. ban someone from pointing out YOUR errors) - wah wah yourself.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I

 

[wardmd]

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.

Oh, and a big FYI...

I WAS prevented from logging back on, smart guy...

Also, you remember your FONT COLOR issue some time ago? That, too, WAS because YOU had set the font color, NOT because of any lack of knowledge on my part (which you also asserted).

You've GOT to stop this regrettable habit you have of asserting as FACT, something which you, obviously, do NOT KNOW (or at least stop crying about it, when the error is drawn to your [and everyone else's] attention).

 

[wardmd]

Ha! I have NO loyal minions. In fact, I'm one of the most controversial individuals here.

Just so everybody knows...the Idiot Box function is screwed up, and it inadvertently locked wardmd out so he created wardmd2.

It was never our intention to lock anybody out and I apologize for the error.

Nevertheless, you warmongering, fact misrepresenting, word twisting bucket of scum. You keep fighting. Afterall, it's in your warlike nature!

Oh my GOD! Stop the presses!

You and I AGREE on something... I WAS locked out... Other than that, we don't seem to agree on much of anything...

Keep trying, though!

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Okay, let's see if I get this...

You DIDN'T say "only sanctions", is THAT what you're saying NOW?

I DIDN'T show you a quote from the U.N. Secretary-General in which HE discusses the need for the U.N. "peace-keeping" forces to be prepared for "FULL COMBAT"?

That's what YOU mean by ME twisting your words?

Oh, forgive me...

I'll try not to point out the fallacies of your statements in the future (not).

It's so much more intellectually stimulating when you just take your ball and go home (a.k.a. ban someone from pointing out YOUR errors) - wah wah yourself.

Hey Chicken Little...The sky is not falling. You can keep yelling it, but alas, it's not falling.

I state this one last time for you. I'll type slow because I know you cannot read fast.

1. The UN is a peaceful means organization.

2. The ramifications of failure to comply with UN resolutions is sanctions.

3. At times, to preserve the peace or to instill it, the UN utilizes ground troops to forcibly secure the peace. These ground troops are for DEFENSIVE purposes only. They do not carry out ACTIVE agressive manuvers. It is not their function.

4. In the past, UN troops have been armed solely with rifles and pistols. This was usually sufficient. However, this is not the case anymore.

5. If you go back to the quote of the Under Secretary in his quote of the Secretary General, you will find this quote which clearly explains the need for better troop weaponry and equipment than just rifles and pistols. "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."

In other words, they have discovered the wisdom of "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight". They need to be as well armed as their adversary.

There is no inconsistency nor fallicy here. You have tried to twist the words and have failed.

Indeed, it is much more intellectually stimulating when you remove your head from up your ass. Please try harder.

As to being banned, I have already apologized twice for the mistake. Both Tori and I tested the function and it is not working correctly.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Oh my GOD! Stop the presses!

You and I AGREE on something... I WAS locked out... Other than that, we don't seem to agree on much of anything...

Keep trying, though!

I agree that you are an idiot. Don't you?

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

…As for people who believe, as I do...

We shall go on lying to the end, we shall fabricate on the Radio and GF, we shall misstate and misrepresent in the blogs and posts, we shall blindly charge forward with arrogance and hubris attempting to grow strength in the airwaves, we shall defend our position of false righteousness and religious indignation whatever the cost may be including lying, stealing, cheating, circumventing, and most of all, trampling the Constitutional liberties of American both home and abroad, we shall try to poison the minds of the youth on the colleges, we shall fight ridiculous self-defeating lawsuits on why we cannot post our phony baloney religious icons on the public courthouse grounds nor hide our religious dogma under the cloak of pseudo science and pump it into the young minds of science students, we shall screw the working man who struggles in the fields and in the streets and in the factories and allow our allies, the corporations, to swindle him out of his retirement, health benefits, and any other well deserved and earned benefit, we shall confiscate private property in the name of redevelopment in the hills; we shall never surrender because we are blood sucking maggots who want to tell everybody else in the world how things are going to be and if they don't agree, we'll kidnap you and have you tortured in a foreign cesspool or incarcerate you forever because by our God Jesus Christ, we don't believe in Habeas Corpus, just your dead corpse!

It is indeed unfortunate that we are a dying breed on our lasts gasps of air, comparable only to the Dodo bird... World, hear my swan song!

I think that this version fits you better. Don't you?

 

[wardmd]

I think that this version fits you better. Don't you?

Who's twisting WHOSE words (just as you did with Mr. Hanson's - Ha, full circle, back to topic!)?

Hey Font for Brains... In the words of President Reagan, "there you go again..."

I'm sure all the pretty colors just fascinate the hell out of you, but your choice of COLOR=black really screws it up for the rest of us (read, NORMAL people) with default colors...

Perhaps, if you were to spend less time on FONT COLORS, and more time on FACTS, you might be more likely to convince people of your position (but, alas, apparently not...).

And, back to YOUR original comment... YOU SAID "ONLY SANCTIONS"... THAT, Sir, is the assertion that was WRONG, and THAT is the assertion which I flamed!

You can TRY to re-state what you MEANT to say, but, like the Constitution, this is NOT a "living, breathing" document (words MEAN THINGS), and YOU CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY stated "ONLY SANCTIONS" (am I typing slowly enough for you?)...

Restating YOUR WORDS (exactly) is NOT "twisting" your words (though you, like most Democrats in Congress, seem to take people quoting their own words as a "personal attack", "twisting their words", or "taking them out of context"...

For the record, I agree (yet again) that the INTENTION of the United Nations IS peace-keeping (I'll go a step further: NON-VIOLENT)... That being said, however, the quote YOU, now, reference does NOT support that lofty goal ("full combat").

But, DAMN, now you're twisting your OWN words, "they have discovered the wisdom of 'Don't bring a knife to a gunfight'. They need to be as well armed as their adversary."

No ****, Sherlock!

Again, how the F$%^ do YOU get from "ONLY SANCTIONS" to "They need to be as well armed as their adversary." (and say, with a straight face, that I'M twisting YOUR words)?

And, NO, we DON'T agree that I'M an idiot... I think we ALL leaning more towards the obvious fact that YOU are...

No, wait, how about the GREAT line from "Witness for the Prosecution"...

"Were you lying then, or are you lying now, or are you not, in fact, a chronic and habitual LIAR?" - Yep, THAT suites you!

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Who's twisting WHOSE words (just as you did with Mr. Hanson's - Ha, full circle, back to topic!)?

Hey Font for Brains... In the words of President Reagan, "there you go again..."

I'm sure all the pretty colors just fascinate the hell out of you, but your choice of COLOR=black really screws it up for the rest of us (read, NORMAL people) with default colors...

Perhaps, if you were to spend less time on FONT COLORS, and more time on FACTS, you might be more likely to convince people of your position (but, alas, apparently not...).

And, back to YOUR original comment... YOU SAID "ONLY SANCTIONS"... THAT, Sir, is the assertion that was WRONG, and THAT is the assertion which I flamed!

You can TRY to re-state what you MEANT to say, but, like the Constitution, this is NOT a "living, breathing" document (words MEAN THINGS), and YOU CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY stated "ONLY SANCTIONS" (am I typing slowly enough for you?)...

Restating YOUR WORDS (exactly) is NOT "twisting" your words (though you, like most Democrats in Congress, seem to take people quoting their own words as a "personal attack", "twisting their words", or "taking them out of context"...

For the record, I agree (yet again) that the INTENTION of the United Nations IS peace-keeping (I'll go a step further: NON-VIOLENT)... That being said, however, the quote YOU, now, reference does NOT support that lofty goal ("full combat").

But, DAMN, now you're twisting your OWN words, "they have discovered the wisdom of 'Don't bring a knife to a gunfight'. They need to be as well armed as their adversary."

No ****, Sherlock!

Again, how the F$%^ do YOU get from "ONLY SANCTIONS" to "They need to be as well armed as their adversary." (and say, with a straight face, that I'M twisting YOUR words)?

And, NO, we DON'T agree that I'M an idiot... I think we ALL leaning more towards the obvious fact that YOU are...

No, wait, how about the GREAT line from "Witness for the Prosecution"...

"Were you lying then, or are you lying now, or are you not, in fact, a chronic and habitual LIAR?" - Yep, THAT suites you!

Hanson's words were restated, paragraph for paragraph. Yours here, admittedly are ad lib'd a great deal but highly accurate in regards to your views I would suspect. Tongue in cheek as it were yet still based in the grains of your truth nevertheless.

Perhaps you believe that if you tell a lie over and over again it will become truth. It won't.

For the record, I have never used a font color=black. Ever. I utilize the blue screen, because I just cannot stomach the thought of black and white screens. It's so 1982.

Once again, if you are going to quote me, quote me.

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.

However, this statement of yours below, is a complete fabrication. I never stated the words ONLY and SANCTIONS anywhere together. Care to find a quote on that? You won't because it only exists in your mind.

And, back to YOUR original comment... YOU SAID "ONLY SANCTIONS"... THAT, Sir, is the assertion that was WRONG, and THAT is the assertion which I flamed!

FYI - the Secretary General and Under Secretary General's quotes I have used have been presented by you. I simply researched them and quoted them in their entirety, at least from a paragraphical standpoint to keep them in context. The truth hurts you, I'm sorry. Pain is good for you.

For the last time, in the referenced quote, you equate the words "full combat" as having been used as a verb, when in fact they were used as an adjective. I cannot make it any simpler than that.

I await your next diatribe with utter fascination.

 

[wardmd]

2. The ramifications of failure to comply with UN resolutions is sanctions.

Oh, forgive me...

I guess President Bush and I are the ONLY two people in the entire world who mis-interpreted "serious consequences" (as stated in United Nations Resolution 1441) - oh, NOW I get it... "Serious Consequences" meant MORE sanctions - how silly of me!

Oh.... Wait, Sanctions were ALREADY IN PLACE, weren't they?

How do you double-talk your way out of that one, Sherlock?

Kinda like Animal House's "Double-Secret Probation".... Kofi Annan was going to impose "Double-Secret Sanctions" on Iraq... Oh, NOW I get it...

How could ANYONE think ANYTHING else? (you picking up on the sarcasm, here?)...

Talk about SPIN - Whew, I'm dizzy just thinking of how you can go from Sanctions to Sanctions ("Serious Consquences")...

Let us not loose sight of the FACT that the ENTIRE United Nations Security Council (including Germany, France, Russian, China, and Syria) voted UNANIMOUSLY that Iraq WAS in material breech of the terms of the Cease-Fire agreement, ALL previous U.N. Resolutions, and 1441 (with those "Serious Consequences")...

Correct me if I'm wrong, oh sage of wisdom... If they REALLY WANTED TO, could not France, China and/or Russia have VETOED 1441? And what, prey tell, was Syria's motivation in THEIR vote (are THEY just a puppet of George W. Bush, too)?

Hey, give me your address, and I'll send you a WHOLE BOX of straws (you seem to be grasping at them)...

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Oh, forgive me...

I guess President Bush and I are the ONLY two people in the entire world who mis-interpreted "serious consequences" (as stated in United Nations Resolution 1441) - oh, NOW I get it... "Serious Consequences" meant MORE sanctions - how silly of me!

Oh.... Wait, Sanctions were ALREADY IN PLACE, weren't they?

How do you double-talk your way out of that one, Sherlock?

Kinda like Animal House's "Double-Secret Probation".... Kofi Annan was going to impose "Double-Secret Sanctions" on Iraq... Oh, NOW I get it...

How could ANYONE think ANYTHING else? (you picking up on the sarcasm, here?)...

Talk about SPIN - Whew, I'm dizzy just thinking of how you can go from Sanctions to Sanctions ("Serious Consquences")...

Let us not loose sight of the FACT that the ENTIRE United Nations Security Council (including Germany, France, Russian, China, and Syria) voted UNANIMOUSLY that Iraq WAS in material breech of the terms of the Cease-Fire agreement, ALL previous U.N. Resolutions, and 1441 (with those "Serious Consequences")...

Correct me if I'm wrong, oh sage of wisdom... If they REALLY WANTED TO, could not France, China and/or Russia have VETOED 1441? And what, prey tell, was Syria's motivation in THEIR vote (are THEY just a puppet of George W. Bush, too)?

Hey, give me your address, and I'll send you a WHOLE BOX of straws (you seem to be grasping at them)...

If it is your intention to ask for forgiveness for misquoting me, to that I gladly state, GRANTED. I'm glad to see that you a can admit when you are making a complete ass of yourself by insisting you are right when in fact you are clearly wrong. Good show.

But, as expected, now once again, swinging 90 degrees in another direction, you wish to offer your supporting evidence for an as unyet argued topic. I see. Do the voices speak often to you?

I'd be happy to give you an opinion if I could deduce what you are trying to discuss now.

Thank you for the offer of the straws, they shall be usefull in the consumption of rum and coke whilst enjoying your written hodgepodge, but please, be sure to include your return address on the box so I can send you sent some Lithium and Thorazine.

Apparantely, your schizophrenic episodes are running amok and getting the better of you.

 

[wardmd]

Hanson's words were restated, paragraph for paragraph. Yours here, admittedly are ad lib'd a great deal but highly accurate in regards to your views I would suspect. Tongue in cheek as it were yet still based in the grains of your truth nevertheless.

Perhaps you believe that if you tell a lie over and over again it will become truth. It won't.

For the record, I have never used a font color=black. Ever. I utilize the blue screen, because I just cannot stomach the thought of black and white screens. It's so 1982.

Once again, if you are going to quote me, quote me.



However, this statement of yours below, is a complete fabrication. I never stated the words ONLY and SANCTIONS anywhere together. Care to find a quote on that? You won't because it only exists in your mind.



FYI - the qotes I have used have been presented by you. I simply researched them and quoted them in their entirety, at least from a paragraphical standpoint to keep them in context. The truth hurts you, I'm sorry. Pain is good for you.

For the last time, you equate the words "full combat" in their usage as a verb, when in fact they were used as an adjective. I cannot make it any simpler than that.

I await your next diatribe with utter fascination.

I stand corrected... You did NOT use the word "only". Glad to see you know when to admit you are wrong. - C.E.S.

However, you DID state, "The result of non-compliance of UN resolutions is never war, but rather sanctions". That is your exact quote, is it not?

The assertion, then (or rather, still), is "never war, but rather sanctions"... Yes Virginia, he can be taught.- C.E.S.

For the umteenth time, then, you cannot assert that the U.N. NEVER engages in war (a.k.a. military action), but only ("rather", to use YOUR words) sanctions, when they, themselves (and, finally, YOU) admit that they DO, indeed, engage in armed conflicts ("full combat"). eI can and I do. The UN does not declare war, they do not attack. This is a fact. They defend and protect.- C.E.S.

Even a first grader understands that "sanctions [rather or only]" does NOT equal "full combat". You can dance around the wording of your assertion all you like, but you cannot escape this glaring contradiction! There you are misusing that "full combat" word again. It's an adjective, not a noun or verb. - C.E.S.

Face it (everyone else already knows I'm right Yeah Right, just like the other point you were so "right" on and have now apologized for. LMAO. - C.E.S.) - "full combat" is NOT the same as "sanctions". PERIOD.

Even if the United Nations brings a "knife to a gun fight" - a KNIFE is not sanctions, either...

You have now apologized, don't ruin it with dimwitted jibberish! - C.E.S.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Just in case you like to remove things...

I stand corrected... You did NOT use the word "only". Glad to see you know when to admit you are wrong. - C.E.S.

However, you DID state, "The result of non-compliance of UN resolutions is never war, but rather sanctions". That is your exact quote, is it not?

The assertion, then (or rather, still), is "never war, but rather sanctions"... Yes Virginia, he can be taught.- C.E.S.

For the umteenth time, then, you cannot assert that the U.N. NEVER engages in war (a.k.a. military action), but only ("rather", to use YOUR words) sanctions, when they, themselves (and, finally, YOU) admit that they DO, indeed, engage in armed conflicts ("full combat"). eI can and I do. The UN does not declare war, they do not attack. This is a fact. They defend and protect.- C.E.S.

Even a first grader understands that "sanctions [rather or only]" does NOT equal "full combat". You can dance around the wording of your assertion all you like, but you cannot escape this glaring contradiction! There you are misusing that "full combat" word again. It's an adjective, not a noun or verb. - C.E.S.

Face it (everyone else already knows I'm right Yeah Right, just like the other point you were so "right" on and have now apologized for. LMAO. - C.E.S.) - "full combat" is NOT the same as "sanctions". PERIOD.

Even if the United Nations brings a "knife to a gun fight" - a KNIFE is not sanctions, either...

You have now apologized, don't ruin it with dimwitted jibberish! - C.E.S.

 

[wardmd]

Just in case you like to remove things...

Sure, I'm not some conceded ideologue - if I'm wrong, I'll admit it (too bad the same can not be said of you)...

I

 

[phreakwars]

Note to self... remind Mr. Schwarz that the idiot box is broken again... need to check permissions.

Note to C.E.S., please verify your post font color when posting, it distracts wardmd, and gives him a clause to sideline the debate and complain rather then carry on with the topic at hand... a sign of weakness

note to wardmd, Nice debating, but don't cry about little inconsistency's in font color, we don't give a ****, but we do appreciate site script errors being brought to our attention..
.
.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Sure, I'm not some conceded ideologue - if I'm wrong, I'll admit it (too bad the same can not be said of you)...

I’ll even go so far as to acknowledge that “but rather sanctions” could very easily have been written as “but to a certain extent sanctions” (again, not “ONLY”), however, your going to have to do some fancy footwork to re-define “NEVER war” (that IS what you said, right?).

“Never War” also does NOT equal “full combat”… Hell, "war" (never or otherwise) does not equal "combat" (full or otherwise).

NEITHER “Never War” nor “rather sanctions” is supported by the “full combat” quote (in its entirety or not) of the Secretary-General.

“War” = “combat”. Sanctions does NOT fit into this equation (rather or otherwise, "full combat" or, simply, "combat"), neither, Sir, does "never":

“Never War” <> “full combat” (anyone whose I.Q. is greater than their shoe size can grasp this – I will be happy to continue to explain it to you C.E.S.)

Font colors do not change the facts... "Serious Consquences" does not equal "sanctions", and THAT is what U.N. Resolutions 1441 said...

Your feeble attempt to dismiss 1441's "serious consquences" as "sanctions" is ludicrous (sanctions on top of sanctions?)...

Your assertion is still WRONG...

You're too new here to know better so you are excused.

FYI Sir, I have admitted on several occasions when I was genuinely wrong, but never will I allow false argument against me. Keep trying though, I may make a mistake and if I do, I will gladly admit it.

I now find it incredibly consistent of you to somehow try and claim that "serious consequences" in United Nations Resolution 1441 somehow entitled the US to invade Iraq. Quite the contrary, the overwhelming majority of member states as well as the Secretary General directly stated

"The purpose was to disarm Iraq, and it no longer contained any “automaticity” for the use of force. The Council must meet again if there was non-compliance by Iraq."

There never was a UN mandate for invasion nor overwhelming member support for such action.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm


Once again, your Machiavellian line of thinking is deeply disturbing. The end does not justify the means no matter how "positive" the results of the end one can argue. This is the very slippery slope into Fascism.

Furthermore, to answer your question, yes, sanctions on top of sanctions are an effective tool. It worked in subdueing Libya and Kadaffi. Good thing G.W. wasn't president then, or we would have invaded there too.

Remarkably, I think you might find the most interesting part of resolution 1441 to be this quote:

" Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard..."

Obviously, the US leadership (G.W. Bush) felt Iraq had NO sovereignty at all.

I disagree. Although I am not fan of Saddam Hussein and the old Iraqi leadership, neither am I a fan of invasion, puppet governments, illegal imprisonment, torture, and covert manipulation of the free press.

Yes you are right. I'm not like you. You stand up and cheer for those things. I deplore them.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Note to self... remind Mr. Schwarz that the idiot box is broken again... need to check permissions.

Note to C.E.S., please verify your post font color when posting, it distracts wardmd, and gives him a clause to sideline the debate and complain rather then carry on with the topic at hand... a sign of weakness

note to wardmd, Nice debating, but don't cry about little inconsistency's in font color, we don't give a ****, but we do appreciate site script errors being brought to our attention..
.
.

Yes, the Idiot Box is broke. It was never my intention to completely slam wardmd like that and you know the rest of the story. It was my intention to bounce him a little for lying about what I said rather than simply going back to cut and paste a quote, (like I do). He apologized for his error. Enough said.

I do extensive review of my posts before posting them. All from the blue screen which I have defaulted.

I do not utilize black font color definitions as I have no need to; the text is defaulted to black in my viewscreen! However, I do utilize red and orage and blue at times for emphasis. Those colors I have selected specifically so that they will display on all default screen color modes.

Perhaps the system automatically inserts a black text control code for users of this screen color?

 

[phreakwars]

Yes, I am thinking this might possibly be the case. Looking into it.

Incase you are not aware wardmd, we have recently done a software upgrade to the site, and we are dealing with quite a few issues with it, such a daunting task, but eventually will be taken care of.

Script errors and such are hard to track down unless we actually SEE this happening for ourselves, sometimes, such as C.E.S.' case, when using a different color scheme, these errors are not noticed as quickly.
.
.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Hey Phreak,

I may have something here...

I often open another window so that I can go back and review individual posts in the thread, and then copy and paste (^C ^V) the text into my other active window where I am composing the post.

In addition, I usually copy the entire text of the message into the buffer (^C) and then paste it into Microsoft word for spell checking, then when done, recopy and paste it back into the GF editor and then post it.

Don't know if somewhere during this, it's picking up a stray font color, but I did it this way since day 1 here, and it never had any problems and I have been a blue screen user for ages and ages.

FYI.

P.S. - I was using the WYSIWYG editor, and have switched back to the Standard Editor so that if the codes are embeded, I will see them.

Happy Hunting.