Subject: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: GUEST,Young Guy. Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:13 PM Can we top my dad's thread with this? |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Amos Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:17 PM No need. But I am pleased to see a balanced perspective!! Does Old Guy know you are using the computer? A |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: GUEST Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:19 PM Nope. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: GUEST,Young Guy Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:19 PM I would get spanked. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:21 PM I hope to God this thread doesn't go on as long as the other one has. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Peace Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:23 PM I hope it does. Right up until election day. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Peace Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:26 PM Bush in Error. Thinks he was elected in 2000. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Bobert Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:29 PM Bush thinks? LOL.... |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Peace Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:42 PM This could be a good use for the toilet paper. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Peace Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:57 PM I have to go. However, I wanted to leave you with the following thought: Guest Young Guy--You are smarter than the Old Guy. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:25 AM Oh Dear! Now it seems that Saddam's Naughty Bits got looted just after the War when the UN inspectors had to leave, and the American troops made no attempt to stop the looting or protect the sites, so now the black market is awash with the stuff... Now who said that it would have been better not to invade so the UN inspectors could keep track of the stuff? |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 04 - 01:02 AM Interesting article on that very subject, Foolestroup: UN: Iraqi Nuclear-Related Materials Have Vanished This article is about materials that disappeared after the US invasion of Iraq. (Beardedbruce, take note.) |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 01:06 AM Actually, I commented on this some months ago- but SRS declared my source to be of the wrong political view, and refused to consider any of the facts presented. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 04 - 01:10 AM Did you read the article I linked to, Beardedbruce? They are blaming this problem on the fact that the US wouldn't allow UN Nuclear inspectors in during and after the invasion, and because the US didn't do anything to protect these sites and materials from being looted, and/or spirited away during and after the invasion. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 01:28 AM And the point is that there was no danger in any of this material, right? Or are you saying that it was dangerous, and we were correct in invading? Con't have it both ways. Or is it dangerous in terrorist hands, but not in Saddam's? I did read the article- unlike the previous refernce, which was declared to be of not value, and the facts could not even be discussed, because it was from a conservative site. Same facts as presented here, so.... They can't really be valid, I guess. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Nerd Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:50 AM beardedbruce, it's you who are trying to have it both ways: 1) if it's not dangerous, it doesn't matter that we lost it, so we're doing fine 2) if it IS dangerous, then Saddam had WMD so we were right to go into Iraq, so we're doing fine. On the other side, you could say: 1) if it's not dangerous, then we screwed up going into Iraq becuae there were no WMD. 2) if it IS dangerous, then we screwed up in losing the materials. You subscribe to one of these fallacies, and make fun of people who subscribe to the other. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:55 AM "You subscribe to one of these fallacies, and make fun of people who subscribe to the other" I agree. To both sides. I had brought this up as an example of the dangerous material, and was told that it was not valid. So how can YOU( the generic liberals) claim it is a problem, since it was declared so non-dangerous in the earlier thread? |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:59 AM I NEVER said we did not make a mistake in securing the material- but you all have been telling me how it was not dangerous, so how can YOU complain? |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 04:09 AM IMO, the two sides are: 1) if it IS dangerous, then Saddam had WMD so we were right to go into Iraq, BUT we screwed up in losing the materials. On the other side, you could say: 2) if it's not dangerous, then we screwed up going into Iraq becuae there were no WMD, BUT it doesn't matter that we lost it. Which one would you like to support? |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: George Papavgeris Date: 13 Oct 04 - 04:24 AM Tam-ti-tam-ti-tam...(tapping fingers). Talking about it achieves little. Just go out and vote, folks; the rest is mock turtle soup. And vote carefully, calmly and consciensciously. After all, we all deserve the governments/leadership we have, in the end. Even the Iraqis. One may not be proud of the President that will be elected. But one can at least be proud of one's own vote. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Peace Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:20 AM Excelsior. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Peace Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:21 AM I don't think beardedbruce will be happy with the election results. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:54 AM I think the point, beardedbruce, is that the UN inspectors had things under control. The US came in and created chaos. The situation wasn't dangerous as long as the UN was keeping things under control. Now that the Bush administration has created chaos, it is possible that the situation has become dangerous. And as I recall, regardless of whether or not the article you posted that you are now referring to was from an acceptible source, you were trying to use it to make a point that the article itself didn't even make. You were saying that the materials had been removed before the UN inspectors left Iraq. The article did not say that. And now this article further supports the fact that the materials were removed after the UN inspectors left Iraq. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Bill D Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:26 PM these articles have to be read with a grain of salt: "Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help (italics mine) a government or terror group make nuclear bombs" if 'something' is gone, that does NOT prove exactly what WAS there, nor does it explain who removed it, or for what purpose, or that it was inherently dangerous when it WAS there. "high-precision equipment" could be lathes and microscopes... similarly, not finding WMDs does not prove they were "just well hidden", etc.....it is easy to construct sentences and claims that, while technically true, explain almost nothing. "if a small boy has a hammer, almost everything he sees looks like a nail" |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Amos Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:34 PM "And if a small boy with a hammer is nuts he will use it to break everything in sight...." A |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:37 PM What the Bush Administration has failed to do is to protect Iraqi assets from looting. That's no problem for them because they just give Halliburton $10 to replace every dollar's worth of assets stolen. Its a win win for Cheney/Bush. They're paying for the whole thing with our money and our children's money. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:23 PM Carol, My point was NOT that it was removed before the invasion- but that it existed at all. In violation of UN resolutions. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:24 PM No, beardedbruce, you were using the article to bolser your argument that allowing the UN inspectors to continue to do their job, even as long as they did, allowed Saddam to get the materials out of Iraq before the invasion. I'll find the relevant post of yours and link it to this thread. On the subject of the UN resolutions, we have already established that the resolutions did not, in any way, authorize the US to attack Iraq and that, in fact, the US most definitely violated the UN resolutions by invading Iraq. The resolutions in question specifically state that the member nations agree to respect and uphold the sovreignty of the Iraqi nation, and it stated that the UNSC would remain seized of the matter. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:28 PM Oh, yeah. The resolution also states that member nations agree to not interfere in any way with the UN inspectors ability to do their job. The UN inspectors had to leave Iraq because of the impending US invasion, so the US was in violation of the resolution in that respect as well. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:35 PM CarolC: "On the subject of the UN resolutions, we have already established that the resolutions did not, in any way, authorize the US to attack Iraq and that, in fact, the US most definitely violated the UN resolutions by invading Iraq." I am not sure that your stetment is true. I beleive that there is wording to indicate that action would be taken if Iraq did not comply- which is what the US did. And Iraq kicked the inspectors out, if I recall the facts of the matter. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Peace Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:39 PM If I may, the invasion took place NOT with UN approval, but despite LACK of UN approval. That's what led to the "Coalition of the Willing". The group consisted of USA, GB, Spain and Bulgaria. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:44 PM link 2002 resolutions 1441 2004 resolutions |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:50 PM Beardedbruce, the UN resolution does not authorize the US to take any action without the approval of the Security Council. And the Security Council did not in any way give the US the authority to take any action. In fact, as I have said before, it specifically states that member nations agree to uphold Iraqi soveriegnty, and to not interfere in any way with the UN inspectors ability to do their job. I have read the resolution very, very carefully, looking for any language that authorizes the US to take action on its own initiative, and it just isn't there. The US violated the resolution by A. interefering in the UN inspectors ability to do their job, and B. by not upholding the soveriegnto of the Iraqi nation. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:52 PM *sovereignty* |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Peace Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:59 PM beardedbruce: There are GANGS of Un Resolutions there. Would you please point me to the one wherein the UN sanctions the US invasion of Iraq? |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:09 PM 1441 declares that it is the last chance to comply before "serious consequences" ( diplomatic talk for armed action) occurs. Yes, there is interpretation required- but for every lawyer that thinks one thing, there is an equal and opposite one just waiting to be asked. Each of us have our own opinion on whether the invasion was legal, and on whether it was justified. WHy should I take your opinions as fact, when you do not take mine as such? |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Peace Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:40 PM I didn't ever ask you to take my opinions as fact. I did ask you to show me the resolution that says the US has UN blessing to invade Iraq. Sheesh! |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:55 PM Brucie- see 13 Oct 04 - 09:09 PM |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Peace Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:58 PM That still doesn't show me the Resolution that says the US has UN sanction to invade Iraq. That is what I wish to see, BB. Thanks though. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:27 PM I see life must be a little quiet for Beardedbruce. He's back on one of those hot button issues, mis-reading and mis-representing the issues in his consistent fashion. And I see my name popped up in here. BB, you used some pretty hokey sources when you posted to that earlier contentious thread. The link posted here is to Reuters, which is a perfectly good large international news bureau. That makes a huge difference in the credibility of the article. I'm not going to fool with this thread--why bother? You never let the facts get in the way of the argument you want to make. You and Dubya have a lot in common. SRS |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:32 PM brucie 1441 declares that it is the last chance to comply before "serious consequences" ( diplomatic talk for armed action) occurs. Yes, there is interpretation required- but for every lawyer that thinks one thing, there is an equal and opposite one just waiting to be asked. Each of us have our own opinion on whether the invasion was legal, and on whether it was justified. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Peace Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:00 PM So that means that when the US decides that something is OK to do that then it is OK for the US to do that. Canada chose not to play ball this time 'round because there WAS no UN sanction. There is not much open to interpretation. Unless EVERYthing is open to interpretation, in which case your Constitution is up for grabs, your legal structure is totally open to interpretation, and world peace is just another name for Neocon dominance--with the US playing the role of the enforcer. Because what you have said simply means that the US can do what it darn well wants when it darn well wants to do it. Hell, whay didn't you just say so in the first place. Woulda saved lots of time. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:20 PM EVERY COUNTRY can do what it darn well wants when it darn well wants to do it. AND accept the consequences. Iraq can ignore UN resolutions. France and Germany can ignore UN sanctions against Iraq, and help Saddam re-arm. The US can enforce what it sees to be a clear and present danger, and lose lives and spend money. And all of the world can ignore places like Sudan, Rwanda, Cambodia, etc if it might be convenient. I hope this has made things cleared, brucie. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:36 PM beardedbruce, the UNSC is the only body authorized under the terms of the resolution, and by agreement of its signatories, to determine what the "serious consequences" of non-compliance with that particular UNSC resolution should be, and when they should be applied. The resolution specifically states that the UNSC decides to remain seized of the matter (chooses to continue to monitor the situation and make decisions as it develops). And it also specifically states that member nations agree to respect the borders and uphold the sovereignty of the Iraqi nation. And it also specifically states that member nations agree not to hinder, in any way, the ability of the UN inspectors to do their job. Both of these conditions place specific limits on what member nations can and cannot do under the terms of the resolution. The fact that the US is a signatory to this resolution binds it to the terms of the resolution. The US, being a signatory to the resolution, cannot then use the resolution as an excuse to violate the terms of the resolution. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:42 PM The fact that Iraq was signitory to cease-fire terms binds it to complience with the UN resolutions. SO WHAT? The US can enforce action against what it sees to be a clear and present danger, and lose lives and spend money. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: CarolC Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:47 PM It can take that action, but it cannot use the UNSC resolution as its justification for doing so. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:49 PM It can take the FAILURE of the UN to take action as a reason to take action. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: Peace Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:02 AM That just says, "If you don't see things my way, UN, then I will do what I want to do with or without you." Your clear and present danger scenario has played out in the past. Russia puttin missiles in Cuba--that was a clear and present danger. Iraq may or may not having WMDs--that's a little shaky to me. My nightmare during the Gulf War was that Iraq would arm a few Scuds with bio or chemical weapons. That scared the shit outta me, because if one of them had hit Israel, I really think that Israel would have used nuclear weapons in response. Given the nature of the conflict in the mid-East, I do think the Israelis would have had no choice but to hit about six countries that surround it. (I am not trying to open a can of worms here. I am not at all saying whether I think this is a good or bad response. However, I think it's the response that would have occurred.) 9/11 was a clear and present danger, and ostensibly that is at least part of the reason the US went into Iraq. But ther has never been a link drawn between 9/11 and Iraq. Hell, what was the worry about letting the UN decide what constituted a 'clear and present danger'? How, exactly then, did Iraq pose a 'clear and present danger' to the USA? If possession of WMDs are a c and pd to the US, then there are at least 20 countries that have nukes, that many with chem weapons and probably that many with bio weapons. Hell, is the US gonna take the world saying the world is a 'clear and present danger' to the USA? |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: CarolC Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:09 AM The UN didn't fail to take action. As we now see, the UN was taking precisely the correct action. It was sending its inspectors into Iraq. The inspectors were doing a good job. The US action of kicking out the inspectors and attacking Iraq is now being blamed for the disappearance of the materials that were discussed in the link I posted in this thread, as well as stockpiles of conventional weapons which are now being used to kill US soldiers as well as innocent Iraqi civilians. |
Subject: RE: BS: Bush is an arrogant asshole. From: CarolC Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:12 AM I'm going to bed. Catch you tomorrow if the satellite is working. |