It's time for you to start apologizing, Mr. Bush - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-27-2005, 11:51 PM   #76
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Egypt just announced they are going to hold elections. Not holding my breath but I'll take that as more good news. There's a chance that Bush may actually be right about man's desire to have a say in his own governance.
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 12:01 AM   #77
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Actually that's shit. But I'm glad you pop up now and then. Because honestly you don't bring anything to this forum. Once you say something usually you leave and never retrurn.
Actually, I bring my strong conservative opinion to this forum. You have a problem with that?

I'm sorry I don't have the time to monitor this forum 24/7, but I have contributed to many threads, some of which I remain the final post.


The reason I started posting in the first place was because the first few threads I read consisted of posts with all the same viewpoint.

I had originally planned a two word response to your post but I thought I'd keep it civil and leave out the personal attacks.
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 12:37 AM   #78
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,662
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark


Actually, I bring my strong conservative opinion to this forum. You have a problem with that?

I'm sorry I don't have the time to monitor this forum 24/7, but I have contributed to many threads, some of which I remain the final post.


The reason I started posting in the first place was because the first few threads I read consisted of posts with all the same viewpoint.

I had originally planned a two word response to your post but I thought I'd keep it civil and leave out the personal attacks.


I have no problem with you bringing in a strong conservative opinion. In fact I don't mind that you aren't here 24/7. I don't mind you bringing in another viewpoint since you see us as having all the same. But the majority of your posts are comparalbe to that of two word posts and that I do mind. You drop in, you spout off a sarcastic remark and then never respond to legitimate questions asked of you. I just don't find it productive, I'd rather debate with those who have strong conservative opinions and actually debate back and answer questions.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-28-2005, 12:53 AM   #79
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 10:13 PM
I've done plenty of debating. I've shown plenty of sarcasm, which I usually reserve for responding to the more ridiculous posts. I don't see a problem with being concise with an opinion.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 02:19 AM   #80
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,662
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark
I've done plenty of debating.
Well I look forward to it.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-01-2005, 05:26 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Reptile347
AllI have to say is read this
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/n...tism/pnac.html

That was written before Bush got in office. I think you can agree that this was planned way before anyone said anything about WMD's.
The United States and other member states of the UN had been trying to get Saddam to Verifiably disarm of all WMD for years. Bill Clinton launched a massive bombing campaign over Iraq in November of 1998 when Saddam forced the UN inspectors out. The United States and other member states of the UN have always been ready to use military force to bring about compliance with the 17 UN resolutions passed against Saddam. After 1998, the use of military force to remove Saddam from power was starting to become a necessity, since all other options to bring about compliance with the resolutions had failed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-01-2005, 05:34 PM   #82
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 01:13 AM
sting, isnt it ironic that you still quote UN resolutions after US rendered it basicly obsolute?

saddam was stupid for kicking out the inspectors. since he didnt really had the goddamn weapons anyway! dumbass

(edit: dumbass was meant for saddam, not sting, and as far as my 'silly logic' is concerned, i am making a lot more sense than most of the right wingers ive come to talk to)
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 03-01-2005, 05:46 PM   #83
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by all_i_want
sting, isnt it ironic that you still quote UN resolutions after US rendered it basicly obsolute?

saddam was stupid for kicking out the inspectors. since he didnt really had the goddamn weapons anyway! dumbass
As far as I'm concerned, the UN became obsolete by failing to enforce the Resolutions in question. So quoting these resolutions is fair play. Any subsequent resolutions, you could argue, would not.

Dumbass? Don't make me go cut and paste some of your silly logic onto this thread.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-01-2005, 05:56 PM   #84
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 01:13 AM
so UN is only good as far is its serves your purposes? thats pretty self righteous

(oh and could you please post some of my silly logic here, id really like to see it)
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 03-01-2005, 06:17 PM   #85
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 10:13 PM
The UN is only as good as it's own words, which it doesn't back up.

I apologize for the snide remark.

Will paste examples of s.l. if you still want me to. I'd rather not as it wouldn't lead to anything productive but I'll stick to my word.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-01-2005, 08:45 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by all_i_want
sting, isnt it ironic that you still quote UN resolutions after US rendered it basicly obsolute?

saddam was stupid for kicking out the inspectors. since he didnt really had the goddamn weapons anyway! dumbass

(edit: dumbass was meant for saddam, not sting, and as far as my 'silly logic' is concerned, i am making a lot more sense than most of the right wingers ive come to talk to)
Well, in case you did not know, the resolutions authorized the United States and other member states of the United Nations to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with the resolutions.

Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD and he failed to do that. Thousands of stocks of WMD from Saddam's arsonal have yet to be accounted for. There are theories as to what happened to the unaccounted for materials, but that is all they are, theories. The only fact there is, is Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD.

The fact that WMD has yet to be found in Iraq is irrelevant to the need to remove Saddam. Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of all WMD and he failed to do that. Given the fact that its far easier to hide such materials than it is to detect them, its impossible to say for sure what Saddam had or did not have at the time of the invasion. Verifiable Disarmament of all WMD was necessary for the peace and security of the region and Saddam failed to comply. That is why military action was necessary.

The enforcement of the UN resolutions by the United States and other member states of the UN has STRENGTHENED the UN and the resolutions process rather than undermine it.

Since the invasion of Iraq, the United Nations has passed 3 more resolutions approving the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-02-2005, 04:51 AM   #87
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 01:13 AM
sting, i understand there are all these resolutions against saddam. but, lets imagine that he did not kick out the inspectors and they still couldnt find any weapons (since they cant even be found now, they might as well not exist). what would happen now? he would fail to verifiably disarm his weapons, cause he has NONE.

and seriously, if he had ANY WMDs, why wouldnt he use them against the US forces in his last hour? i mean, he'd have nothing to lose and those might have very well been his last chance.

so please, lets put the WMDs aside. this war was never about WMDs. it was about the conservative america's new vision of the world. also, i think US is a bit past the point of seeking legitimacy for their actions now. you dont need to quote the resolutions anymore.
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 03-02-2005, 05:58 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by all_i_want
sting, i understand there are all these resolutions against saddam. but, lets imagine that he did not kick out the inspectors and they still couldnt find any weapons (since they cant even be found now, they might as well not exist). what would happen now? he would fail to verifiably disarm his weapons, cause he has NONE.

and seriously, if he had ANY WMDs, why wouldnt he use them against the US forces in his last hour? i mean, he'd have nothing to lose and those might have very well been his last chance.

so please, lets put the WMDs aside. this war was never about WMDs. it was about the conservative america's new vision of the world. also, i think US is a bit past the point of seeking legitimacy for their actions now. you dont need to quote the resolutions anymore.
#1 The United Nations inspectors have found that SADDAM failed to account for over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, over 500 pounds of mustard gas, over 500 pounds of Sarin Gas and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.

If Saddam no longer had this stuff then he is required to show what he did with it! If Saddam took the above materials and dimantled them at a site 100 miles north of Baghdad, then SADDAM is required to take the inspectors to that site so they can verify that the materials were in fact dismantled there through examination of the remains!

It is a fact established by the UN inspectors that Saddam had this stuff and has failed to account for it. What Saddam had done with it and where it is and what condition it is in is unknown.

WMD's are sensitive materials and if one is attempting to conceal them from the international community by burying them thousands of feet below ground or some other method, you can't just suddenly dig them up and distribute them to the various military units that would use them.

In the first Gulf War in 1991, Saddam stored thousands of stocks of WMD with Republican Guard divisions along the border of Kuwait and inside Kuwait. They were instructed to wait for the ground invasion to use the WMD. The ground campaign though was so fast and Iraqi units were uncertain of where coalition units were, that none of the WMD was ever fired from Iraqi artillery during the 4 day ground campaign which destroyed nearly 2/3s of Saddam's standing military at that time.

Saddam's plan in 2003 was to convince as many people as possible that he did not have WMD despite his failure to account for thousands of stocks of WMD that he had in the 1990s. In hiding the WMD to the degree necessary to avoid detection, meant that it would be impossible to use the WMD if hostilities did break out.


The conflict with SADDAM goes back long before the current Bush administration came into power. The United States and other coalition countries were trying to get SADDAM to comply and were drafting resolutions that authorized the use of military force if he stopped the inspections process, long before W was ever President.

It has always been US foreign and military policy since 1945 to do whatever was necessary to protect and secure the Persian Gulf's energy supply because of its importance to the planets economy and way of life. This is NOT some new conservative agenda!

The United States and other coalition countries continue to work within the United Nations to help secure the Persian Gulf Region. The United Nations has passed 3 different resolutions authorizing the occupation and is involved in the development and rebuilding of Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-03-2005, 06:41 AM   #89
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Lost Cause AIW.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 03-03-2005, 01:47 PM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Holy Shit....its been so long since there has been a good resolution discussion......

There...I have successfully filled my reolution chat obligations for the next year.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com