France Surrenders!

[Japher]

GePap: You really need to read what you write. Excuses are not justifications. I do not disagree with the justification that Sadam had with attacking Iraq. I do however have reservations with you EXCUSES for him attacking Kuwait.

Only a mad man would wan't to knock down their neighbor because they were in debt to them.

What a lame excuse.

Thus, it (what I wrote) is not a load of crap. Have you ever stopped to wonder why Sadam is always going to war, at the drop of a hat? Because he is a PSYCHO!!!

Thanks though for the history lesson.

Jimmytrick: Way to stand up for the boys!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


I didn't say it was a success Dolphin.

I presumed "American combat forces kicked ass" implied you thought the US was successful because it had a big body count.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


I presumed "American combat forces kicked ass" implied you thought the US was successful because it had a big body count.

Nope. And I hope I did not offend you by seeming to poo pah civilian casualties. I don't want any innocents to die.

BTW, from a military POV, Germany's effort in WW2 was outstanding. The Wehrmacht was an unmatched killing machine just as the Fuhrer was an unmatched tyrant. Might doesn't make right, but it does stir up a lot of sh!t.

I truely hope that Saddam complies with the UN mandate and there need be no future hostility. But if he doesn't I pray the US drops the wrath of God on him.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I truely hope that Saddam complies with the UN mandate and there need be no future hostility. But if he doesn't I pray the US drops the wrath of God on him.

And kill thousands of civilians in the process, who suffered from his regime for years. But I must admit you're consitent jimmytrick, since you said :

As for civilian casualties, I don't know and I don't care.

Well, I guess that's what liberals are calling "the degenerating of a once great country", when its inhabitants think like the madmen they want to fight.

[The Mad Monk]

From the resolution:

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed and rotary winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles:

Can you see the Predators buzzing Baghdad, day and night?

Best. Resolution. Ever.

[Straybow]

France: We don't think these guys are so dangerous.
[French oil tanker gets bombed by terrorists]
France: On the other hand…

I'm still thinking Saddam is the good excuse to make people accept this war (how many countries don't obey UN resolutions ? How many powerful madmen are there in the world ? Why should we strike now rather than yesterday or tomorrow ?), but let's face it, the only true intend is oil, even if the fall of the despotic regime will be good news. —Spiffor

UN passes "We hate Israel and the USofA" resolutions all the time, which Israel and the USofA routinely ignore. This is different; if Euroweenies can't tell the difference they can sod off. After years of foot-dragging by Euroweenies and their favorite American President, the USofA managed to get a coalition into Yugoslavia to count the bodies. The USofA prefers to intervene while there is still a populace to protect.

:hmm: Do people forget that this whole mess started when Saddam invaded his peaceful neighbor Kuwait, raped and pillaged, etc? He got his but kicked, and the coalition that kicked it in offered to stop the war under conditions stipulated.

Years ago the USofA invaded Panama to depose Noriega for playing both sides when "the only true intent" was to curtail drug trade. If the USofA were really the war freaks as peaceniks claim we'd have invaded again to keep the Panama Canal out of Chinese hands. It's that "real and present danger" idea, not just whatever is in USofA's ideological interest.

It isn't because the senior GB was in office during Desert Storm, but because of a spineless liberal simpleton being in office for 8 years in between. We shouldn't be on the 18th iteration of, "This is your last chance!" We are doing it right this time, even if we have to jump through a UN hoop or two to get there. This is Saddam's last chance.

[David Floyd]

David, I am sure that I am misunderstanding this quote. I hope so. Because if not, I am going to have to be branding you a treasonous little piss ant punk.

So please clarify that those were not American aircraft piloted by American pilots that you are sorry the Iraqis failed to shoot down.

No, you had it right the first time. It's unfortunate that Iraq was unable to successfully defend itself against US militarism and interventionism.

It certainly would have been a shame for US pilots to die, but then again, they accept that risk by volunteering for the US Air Force.

And I'm afraid the word "treason" is pretty meaningless to me, except as a loaded buzzword used mainly by conservative hawks, so you'll excuse me if I don't care what you call me.

[David Floyd]

I truely hope that Saddam complies with the UN mandate and there need be no future hostility. But if he doesn't I pray the US drops the wrath of God on him.

If you changed "Saddam" to "Sharon", it would be logically inconsistent for you to disagree with that statement.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, you had it right the first time. It's unfortunate that Iraq was unable to successfully defend itself against US militarism and interventionism.

It certainly would have been a shame for US pilots to die, but then again, they accept that risk by volunteering for the US Air Force.

And I'm afraid the word "treason" is pretty meaningless to me, except as a loaded buzzword used mainly by conservative hawks, so you'll excuse me if I don't care what you call me.

Well in that case David, if we happen to meet off net you'll excuse me when I excercise my natural right to kick the living **** out of you.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Well in that case David, if we happen to meet off net you'll excuse me when I excercise my natural right to kick the living **** out of you.

Oh, I don't really mean that. I know you are just a kid and hell, when I was a kid I had lots of stupid ignorant ideas too.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Straybow
UN passes "We hate Israel and the USofA" resolutions all the time, which Israel and the USofA routinely ignore.

The US has a veto on the security council. WHY would you think it would pass a resolution that is "We hate the USofA"? Rather than pass it and ignore it, the US would just veto it.

The US passes those resolutions because it agrees (or at least does not object) to them.

[David Floyd]

Well in that case David, if we happen to meet off net you'll excuse me when I excercise my natural right to kick the living **** out of you.

Really? You have a natural right to assault me?

Actually you don't. If you were to assault me, though, I certainly have a right to fight back.

Oh, I don't really mean that. I know you are just a kid and hell, when I was a kid I had lots of stupid ignorant ideas too.

First of all, I'm hardly a "kid", I'm just an adult who is younger than you are.

Secondly, if my ideas are "stupid" and "ignorant", then you're a big poo-face. How's that for logic?!

Sorry, you've never been able to adequately make or defend ANY position, so I'm not gonna take you seriously until you start.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, you had it right the first time. It's unfortunate that Iraq was unable to successfully defend itself against US militarism and interventionism.

It certainly would have been a shame for US pilots to die, but then again, they accept that risk by volunteering for the US Air Force.

And I'm afraid the word "treason" is pretty meaningless to me, except as a loaded buzzword used mainly by conservative hawks, so you'll excuse me if I don't care what you call me.

:: Looks at quote ::

:: reads over quote again ::

:: One more time just to make sure ::

David, I would like to give a big hearty "f-ck you" on behalf of the United States Armed Forces. Throughout my time here on Apolyton (at least, when I started hanging around the OT) you have demonstrated yourself to be a spineless, ballless ingrate who'd rather have the world fall apart around himself then risk personal harm.

Now, in effect, you're labeling USAF, USN, and USMC (Plus RAF) pilots as less than human beings. I always wondered if you had any empathy at all for your fellow homo sapiens sapiens, now I know. You don't.

Those planes are flying over Iraq, and are legally doing so. It was Saddam Hussein who set himself up for the no-fly zones, not the rest of the World. And now, even though I'm going into "Immient Danger" (so says the job detailer here), I hope to be there when we 'regime change' his ass.

So, f--k you David Floyd. Go back to whatever Libertarian masturbation fantasy world you live in. As the man said, Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

[Spiffor]

AFAIK, the US and UK planes are bombing Iraqi buildings. It may be explaning why Iraq dares to respond. I'm glad the Iraqi AA misses its targets, but I deeply regret Yank bombs hit theirs.

But you'll probably argue that Iraq shouldn't try to defend itself when bombed, because "it is legal to enforce a UN resolution" (best sham ever ! )...

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
AFAIK, the US and UK planes are bombing Iraqi buildings. It may be explaning why Iraq dares to respond. I'm glad the Iraqi AA misses its targets, but I deeply regret Yank bombs hit theirs.

But you'll probably argue that Iraq shouldn't try to defend itself when bombed, because "it is legal to enforce a UN resolution" (best sham ever ! )...

You misrecall. US/UK planes bomb Iraqi buildings....in reailiation for being shot out.

It originated when the Iraqis would use SAM radars to target Western airplanes on patrol. Whether or not the Iraqis actually intended to shoot at US/UK planes is moot, because any military pilot with any sense of shelf preservation is going to destroy that radar site before a SAM is launched and guided in.

From there it went to Iraqi AAA, weapons not to far remove from WW2 stuff, opening up on planes. Then the actual weapons sites were hit.

[Spiffor]

I recall the bombings in Irak started again when Clinton wagged the dog.

The official excuse was because Irak didn't obey the UN resolutions (once again), not because it shot US&UK planes.

[The Mad Monk]

Were those airstrikes debated by the SC beforehand?

[Spiffor]

The UN (I don't know about the security council) accepted Iraqis explanations that the inspectors were doing spying for the US.
The Australian boss of the inspectors took positions contrary to the UN but favorable to the US (and pretty extremistic views indeed).
I don't remember if the US-UK forced the UN to accept the bombings or not, but no UN force is involved in this thing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
Only a mad man would wan't to knock down their neighbor because they were in debt to them.

What a lame excuse.

Thus, it (what I wrote) is not a load of crap. Have you ever stopped to wonder why Sadam is always going to war, at the drop of a hat? Because he is a PSYCHO!!!

Thanks though for the history lesson.

I am trying to find the least insulting way to answer this...

Saddam has gone to war twice in 30 years of power. In 4 years Bush 1 went to war 2 times and sent troops into a third. Hmmm. yeah, the BUsh family is PSYCHO

Saddam in 1990 was facing a difficult economic situation and the Kuwaiti regime was one of the factors. A large state with a large military attacking a very small rich state that is distabilizing its economy, thinking that it has the support of a major superpower in doing so: yeah, thats totally unrealistic and insane...

It woul be nice Japher, to have a reasoned argument, not a bunch of opinions, to argue against. That way, I don't have to censure the long list of expletives I wanted to hurl at you for such a poorly, no, totally unargued, point.


Jimmy:
The US indescriminitelly bombed Hanoi, ( I bet you have never seen that poicture of the little girl running away from the Napalm strike that has just horribly burned her), so you statemnt that the US did not indescriminitelly attack civilians in Vietnam is, well, of dubious reality.

[Drake Tungsten]

The US has a veto on the security council. WHY would you think it would pass a resolution that is "We hate the USofA"? Rather than pass it and ignore it, the US would just veto it.

The US passes those resolutions because it agrees (or at least does not object) to them.

There is a difference between resolutions passed by the Security Council and the General Assembly. You are right that the US can veto any Security Council resolution it doesn't like, but it can't do the same to a General Assembly resolution. Of course, GA resolutions cannot be legally enforced, however, so they aren't nearly as important as SC resolutions. SC resolutions are much more effective, but also much harder to get due to the veto.

There are many GA resolutions targeted at Israel in particular and the US to a lesser extent. For example, all the resolutions that equate Zionism with Racism are GA resolutions, not SC ones.

[GePap]

We had a thread here not long ago, Drake, that showed that Israel is in violation of the most Security council resolutions of all, without counting 242 and 338.

The Us does block any resoltuion calling Israel racist, or assining it full blame for the ME crisis, but it does not vote against resoltuions that ask for small things like asking Israel to stop violating the Human Rigths of Palestinians. The last resoltuion passed by the Security council over this isse asked Israel not only to pull back from Arafats headquarters, but also to pull out of Palestinian areas. It hasn't happened, now has it?

[Drake Tungsten]

We had a thread here not long ago, Drake, that showed that Israel is in violation of the most Security council resolutions of all, without counting 242 and 338.

The Us does block any resoltuion calling Israel racist, or assining it full blame for the ME crisis, but it does not vote against resoltuions that ask for small things like asking Israel to stop violating the Human Rigths of Palestinians.

I never said otherwise. I was just pointing out that the UN does pass anti-American and anti-Israeli resolutions in the General Assembly. The Security Council passes resolutions on Israel as well, but I wouldn't call them anti-Israeli. Asking the Israelis to make certain modifications to their behavior is far different than saying that the whole state of Israel is built upon a racist concept.

[David Floyd]

David, I would like to give a big hearty "f-ck you" on behalf of the United States Armed Forces. Throughout my time here on Apolyton (at least, when I started hanging around the OT) you have demonstrated yourself to be a spineless, ballless ingrate who'd rather have the world fall apart around himself then risk personal harm.

Good counterargument!

Now, in effect, you're labeling USAF, USN, and USMC (Plus RAF) pilots as less than human beings. I always wondered if you had any empathy at all for your fellow homo sapiens sapiens, now I know. You don't.

How am I labeling them as "less than human beings"? In any case, YOU are certainly labeling Iraqis as "less than human beings", with the implication that we should be able to bomb them with impunity.

Those planes are flying over Iraq, and are legally doing so.

Legally, according to a cease fire, maybe. In the spirit of the US Constitution, certainly not. Legal in the eyes of Iraq, clearly not. What you have to remember, though, was that the cease fire agreement was just as immoral as the entire Persian Gulf War was.

It was Saddam Hussein who set himself up for the no-fly zones, not the rest of the World. And now, even though I'm going into "Immient Danger" (so says the job detailer here), I hope to be there when we 'regime change' his ass.

So you want to go kill Iraqis, huh? And that's not even in self defense, either.

So why in the **** are you allowed to say you want to go kill Iraqis (innocent Iraqis, at that), in their own country, but I'm not allowed to say those same Iraqis should be able to successfully defend themselves against aggression?

As the man said, Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

What authoritarian mother****er said that?

[Capt Dizle]

I am just wondering what place in society David would be best suited for.

Has the Unabomber's shack been rented out?

[David Floyd]

go **** yourself

[Capt Dizle]

David you are a fraud. You live in the US and partake in its advantages and then sit back and spit at the hand that feeds you. You are a disgrace.

Your blather about natural rights is a hilarious mockery of intellectual elitist snobbery perpetrated by an intellect that is clearly neither elite nor entitled to look down its nose at anyone.

I don't mind your endless and pointless debating and posturing but when you take a position as blatantly corrupt as to wish death upon young men who serve this country and secure your own liberty, then I can't make excuses for you.

You are simply repugnant.

[Jon Miller]

ha ha ha ha

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

sorry for my response

I was expecting a debate and found the posts that Is aw instead funny

Jon Miller

[David Floyd]

but when you take a position as blatantly corrupt as to wish death upon young men who serve this country and secure your own liberty

I'm not wishing death upon anyone. I'm simply wishing that Iraq would be able to stop the US's aggression. If that means some US pilots die, that's bad, but let's remember where the responsibility lies for that - with the US government, who ordered the aggression in the first place.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by David Floyd
...but let's remember where the responsibility lies for that - with the US government, who ordered the aggression in the first place.

Not taking sides in this thread's debate, but wasn't it Iraq that drew first blood in its invasion of Kuwait? The USA was drawn in because of its impromtu role as International Police Force (and the oil fields, of course). Iraq lost that war and agreed to terms of surrender, which for ten years has not abided by those terms. Imagine what would have happened if Japan hadn't abided by the terms of its surrender after WWII, what the USA's response would have been.

Like I said, I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying.