If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Well not that I have any intention of continuing this but one little point;
the ceasefire agreement was with the UN - not the US. The UN did NOT sanction war, you did. Therefore your war is illegal. What is more, the ceasfire terms were that Iraq disarmed; at the UN, Iraq said they had disarmed and the UN weapons inspectors concurred (as opposed to conquered, which the US did). Therefore the war was illegal; the only people saying Iraq had WMD was the White House - they even said, in what will go down in history as the momentous lie since Hitler's pledge in Munich - to have 'evidence' of WMD in Iraq. Iraq was disarmed; there were no WMD. The US lied. And then invaded, in stark violation of the UN charter and therefore in breach of international law and, therefore, this war was, is and ever shall remain Illegal. "Randy Magruder" > wrote in message ... > John Wallace wrote: > >> Randy Magruder wrote: >> >> > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you >> > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the >> > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. >> >> The legal right to go to war is nothing to do with Bush's SOU >> address. It is solely to do with the UN resolutions, and whether or >> not Iraq possessed WMD. It doesn't matter if Bush is ****ed off that >> Saddam drives a Japanese car, or prefers Pepsi over Coke, no WMD = >> illegal war. >> >> Bush can practice all the revisionist history he wants and cite a >> bajillion other reasons - that doesn't give them meaning. > > John, while you're looking up my private e-mail address to continue > this, you might also read the definition of "Ceasefire agreement". > > Later. I won't answer any more of your posts HERE > > Randy |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of U.S. inventions, what do you think the U.N. is - any idiot
can see the U.N. is simply something for the U.S. to divert attention away from itself with. Like dago democracy seeks to con the people into thinking they get a say in things down at the ballot box, the U.N. creates the illusion that a body other than the U.S. is running the show here on earth - big jokes these. Mostly, the U.N. is a U.S. puppet but the U.S. has demonstrated that their approval is only nice, not neccessary. It's pointless to refer to people as criminals when you simply don't have the power to arrest them. "alex martini" > wrote in message ... > Well not that I have any intention of continuing this but one little > point; the ceasefire agreement was with the UN - not the US. The UN did > NOT sanction war, you did. Therefore your war is illegal. What is more, > the ceasfire terms were that Iraq disarmed; at the UN, Iraq said they had > disarmed and the UN weapons inspectors concurred (as opposed to conquered, > which the US did). Therefore the war was illegal; the only people saying > Iraq had WMD was the White House - they even said, in what will go down in > history as the momentous lie since Hitler's pledge in Munich - to have > 'evidence' of WMD in Iraq. Iraq was disarmed; there were no WMD. The US > lied. And then invaded, in stark violation of the UN charter and therefore > in breach of international law and, therefore, this war was, is and ever > shall remain Illegal. > "Randy Magruder" > wrote in message > ... >> John Wallace wrote: >> >>> Randy Magruder wrote: >>> >>> > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you >>> > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the >>> > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. >>> >>> The legal right to go to war is nothing to do with Bush's SOU >>> address. It is solely to do with the UN resolutions, and whether or >>> not Iraq possessed WMD. It doesn't matter if Bush is ****ed off that >>> Saddam drives a Japanese car, or prefers Pepsi over Coke, no WMD = >>> illegal war. >>> >>> Bush can practice all the revisionist history he wants and cite a >>> bajillion other reasons - that doesn't give them meaning. >> >> John, while you're looking up my private e-mail address to continue >> this, you might also read the definition of "Ceasefire agreement". >> >> Later. I won't answer any more of your posts HERE >> >> Randy > > |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
If you get all your news from the same place, then you're buying in to
their reporting slant. Every news agency has it's own bias, if you want to pick the fact from the spin you have to read a few different reports of the same story from different sources. By that I mean, from around the world, not just Fox and CBS. It's interesting that no decent info on the N. Korea nuke situation was from news agencies in the US or UK. The day N. Korea announced they had nukes, the BBC didn't even mention it on their 30 minute news program... If you want a perfect example of sensationalist, completely false reporting from the BBC, check out their top story on Condoleezza Rice at the 9/11 inquiry. They painted her up to be satan's first born, completely ignoring anything resembling 'fact'. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Still smarting from the election, eh?
"alex martini" > wrote in message news > Uh, me no - I was saying that the idea that Iraq was a threat to the US - > and therefore a legitimate target for invasion - was spurious at the time > and has been proven to be a lie with hindsight and anyone who thinks Iraq > was in any way, shape or form a legitimate target for invasion is either > (a) deluded (b) Bush (c) ignorant or (d) all of the above. > "MartyU" > wrote in message > ... >> Are you really comparing the support for allies in the grip of a growing >> Nazi empire with the essentially unilateral, preemptive attack for bogus >> reasons of a country that was no threat to US national security? >> >> Geez... >> >> Marty >> >> alex martini wrote: >>> A normal person understands that war is a last resort, and one that is >>> taken because one's nation is in danger. A normal person understands >>> that democracy is not implemented at the point of a depleted uraniumed >>> bomb. Were it only so, we'd all be nazis by now. >>> >>> "Mitch_A" > wrote in message >>> om... >>> >>>>Youre mis-interpreting aggression. If anything like me it's not >>>>aggression it's AMAZEMENT that an otherwise seemingly normal person can >>>>think in the terms youve described yourself in the past few posts. >>>> >>>>The flight sim ng is known for its left wing lunatics if youre looking >>>>for a fight Alex >>>> >>>>Mitch >>>> >>>> >>>>"alex martini" > wrote in message . .. >>>> >>>>>Yes aggression is your nature I've noticed ;-) >>>>>"rmagruder" > wrote in message glegroups.com... >>>>> >>>>>>So, how you liking the sims these days? >>>>>> >>>>>>(Sorry, but I'm AGGRESSIVELY changing the subject back to, ya know, >>>>>>REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Randy Magruder wrote:
> John Wallace wrote: > > >>Randy Magruder wrote: >> >>>Sorry dude, as of yesterday, I'm done with this useless discussion. >>>I'm staying on sims from today on. >> >>Or, "crap, I have no argument to that so I'll sprint for the moral >>high ground" > > > I'll be happy to take this conversation with you to private e-mail or > anywhere else. Don't assume that just because I choose to try to get > back to talking racing sims here (I know, the horror!). You know my > e-mail address. If you actually want to debate this you know where to > reach me. I apologise if I misjudged your bowing out. E-mail would be good, but probably not on this topic. Neither of us are going to convert the other, and I don't think it's the intention. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Henrie wrote:
>> no WMD = illegal war. >> > > > Rather, no WMD = umpopular war. The violation of the Cease Fire > agreements signed after the first Gulf war were all the justification the > USA needed to launch an attack. If that's the case, why is the UK being so coy about the legaility of our involvement? Our top legal advisor was told what to say by the government, and has been gagged from talking about it. So we, the public from whom some were selected to go and die, are not allowed to know if the deaths were in a legal cause. The case for war may be proven as interpreted in a John Wayne movie, but under international law it is not proven. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|