Letter to Europe

[eisanbt]

The right hat comes out only for the sake of debate! It is otherwise tomfoolery. I find it necessary to understand reasoning of various viewpoints on an issue in order to reach the most logical conclusion, the right hat I find is seldom that.

 

And I agree with your definition of terrorist, but that is not the state's. Their's includes, as I stated earlier, pretty much ANYBODY using direct action against any establishment. This i find to be a bullshit way of labeling people. While I don't practice this, I understand the arguments for it. I am not a black-bloc anarchist, but I'm not going to stop them.

[snafu]

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.

[wardmd]

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

[wardmd]

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.

Well said!

 

There are so many "politically correct" terms being thrown out with the hopes that they will alter the impression by the general public.

 

The term

[phreakwars]

To clear up the text font issue before proceeding here, I just want to clarify that C.E.S. did have a black font originally, which was a slight editing error on his part. I edited his post for him and changed it back to the standard GF colors. CES probably hadn't noticed this because he is probably using a different color sceme then the black and white, therefore in HIS window, the colors look normal. Anyways... good debate... carry on..

.

.

[wardmd]

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.

Hey, nice title for a book - "It takes an apple tree".

 

Perhaps that better analogy would be, "Let's tax the shit out of those who produce and give it to those who sit on their asses, complaining that the rich get all the breaks, then complain that the rich are the only one's getting tax breaks"?

 

I guess you could consider it "unilateral" action to shoot some punk who broke into my house, raped my wife, and is now coming at me with a baseball bat (when all he wanted was someone to play ball with, right?).

 

But then, there's the guys in New Orleans who broke into stores to steal Microwave Ovens and Television sets (never mind that there was no POWER available) - I'm sure THEY felt that they were “entitled” to it, ‘cause some dipwad Mayor couldn’t find the keys to the hundred or so school buses to evacuate the citizens, or that the dipwad Governor couldn’t make up her mind for 24 hours if she would allow Federal troops into her state…

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

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).

 

 

How trivial of you. As Phreakwars pointed out, I do not use the standard black and white screen but rather the blue with black text, so although there may have been color codes embedded in the text, I am quite sure that I did not place them there. Perhaps it is a bug in the software, but who cares anyway as you obviously were able to read my post. Do try not to be so trite will you?

 

 

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

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

PART II.

 

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).

 

 

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” Limbaugh or perhaps the “fair and balanced” FOX news network. You really do make me laugh.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

You are the consummate Niccoló Machiavelli thinker. Your end result, justifies your means. Perhaps you have read The Prince; it is probably your manifesto. Nowhere do I ever claim that Saddam Hussein was a good guy. He wasn’t. Yes, he used chemical weapons on his own countries soil. No doubt about it. However, this is not justification for the US to invade Iraq. There is no justification for invasion other than declared war as a result of direct military conflict. In this case, there simply was none except for the politically spun hype of WMD frenzy that turned out to be nothing more than balderdash. I still laugh at an old copy of Newsweek and Time where the US government released DETAILED drawings of chemical weapons manufacturing facilities and even mobile trailers! All bullshit. Smoke and mirrors. It’s great to know that the US propaganda machine still works like a charm, especially on its own citizens.

 

 

Claims of massacred political opponents exist in every 2nd and 3rd world nation on this planet. This is nothing new. After the installation of any new government, the old guard is purged by the new. What’s your point? Is this another reason in your mind for invasion? Well then we need to go back to Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Argentina, Armenia, the former Yugoslavia, just about everyplace in Africa, etc. etc. etc. Oh hell, given your head up the ass logic, we have the right to invade most of the world based upon this one. But then of course, with your flawed logic, the rest of the world should have the right to invade us for our genocide of the indigenous population of America.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Oh what a spin doctor you are. On National TV, Bush ordered Saddam Hussein and his sons out of Iraq. How arrogant can a President be? It’s comforting to know that we can demand the exile of the leader of another nation and if we don’t get it, we can invade. Classic!

 

 

The problem, Sir, is that Saddam had NO INTENTION of living peacefully with his neighbors (again, HE invaded Kuwait).

 

 

This is a matter of opinion Sir. From Saddam’s perspective, he retook stolen Iraqi lands. Personally, I was there and fought in the first gulf war and I think I know the circumstances probably better than you.

 

 

 

Of course, “living peacefully” was never the intentions of the United States with regard to Iraq or any other nation in that region. Hell, for over 10 years, the US was the arms dealer to both Iraq and Iran simultaneously. How hypocritical yet how deliciously destabilizing for us. Our intention was clearly to allow them to thin each other down to a minimum amount of soldiers and munitions. You do not tell the story correctly. You whitewash everything and gladly ignore the actions and events of our government which do not look good in the light of day. Isn’t it peculiar that we are the only nation in the world, where the sun never sets on our military troops? We’ve got them scattered around the world in a dozen countries at the same time. Yep, we’re all for peace. I need to take a break from the keyboard for a few minutes because I cannot stop laughing at you. You should be a comedian!

 

 

 

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”.

 

 

Now I’m convinced you smoke crack. You’ve never had an economics or accounting class in your life have you? I don;t know where you get your numbers but they have a nice smoke and mirrors effect. Let's get real numbes and real percentages shall we.

 

 

 

Ever heard of NATIONAL DEBT. It’s a real number, not a percentage and certainly not a smoke and mirrors trick like you just tried. It’s the “account balance due” on the national credit card and the one that every American citizen instantly recognizes and understands. Let’s look at that one shall we.

 

 

 

First off, ALL Presidents from Truman on have reduced the gross federal debt EXCEPT Reagan and both of the Bushes. That’s right, every other one.

 

 

Bush Jr. has now taken us into 8.2 trillion dollars of debt, the highest amount ever in the history of this country and now it stands in excess of 70% of the yearly G.D.P.! You can do the math yourself [ (8,200,000,000,000 (the National Debt) / 11,750,000,000,000 (The G.D.P.) ] 100 = 69.79%

 

 

Let’s put this is real numbers for a sec. In order to pay off the national debt right now, EVERY SINGLE living person in the USA, regardless of age, would need to pay $27,500 to the Federal Reserve today. Every living person. Holy Fucking Shit! Jesus, Mary and Joseph! If you cannot classify that as bankrupt in every sense of the word, you are a complete idiot.

 

 

No Sir, you have it backwards. You are the KING of false and misleading statements. Your rose colored glasses virtually ensure that!

 

Lastly and most importantly, it has been a long time since somebody gave me this kind of action. Kudos to you! I hope you stick around.

[wardmd]

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

[wardmd]

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]

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’s why they worded 1441 the way they did “serious consequences”. What would you say that meant? As wardmd pointed out this was a Cease Fire agreement after the invasion of Kuwait. The war had not ended. They refuted the no fly zone. They shot at our planes. They did not comply with any of the other resolutions. They threw out the inspectors and waited for another resolution. These are aggressions to the World Peace keeping U.N. (fuck the U.N. but we also have to comply with them) “Serious consequences” can only mean one thing to me and others after diplomacy fails. After fighting with France and Russia( who had financial investments with Saddam) we did end up with a 15-0 vote on this resolution. After so much diplomacy we can only assume that “serious consequences” would result in a military conflict. What other serious consequences could have taken place in order to get the results the U.N. was looking for?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

 

I know of no stipulations that the US placed on the elections that took place in Iraq. I guess I’ll have to do some homework but I believe it was a no bias election. It had to be less bias as the one that put Saddam in power.

[wardmd]

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

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

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)?

 

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.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

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).

 

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.

[phreakwars]

I like this, perhaps we can give our newest member a PRIZE if he can out debate you C.E.S. , but if he FAILS, .... well... you know.. , but we won't be THAT harsh... And of course YOU can do the honors.

.

.

[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"?

Fuck 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 fucking 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 fucking 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.