[voodoo]

back on topic? Naw, this thread is REDUNDANT.

[Logic]

Well to get back on topic....(because some don't want to back up their statements )

Well, I think that is a decent idea worth trying. It's better than going into war. But I doubt it will be past as a resolution because the US will not stand to let some other nations taking control of this matter. Just like in some other areas close to Iraq.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
Well to get back on topic....(because some don't want to back up their statements )

What statement is that? Give me a break. I got sick of repeating myself for those who can't seem to follow along.

[Developer]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
my friend tom is still wondering where the money is.

What about reading?
I posted Powell's proof of Iraq's link to terrorism above. They have 7 (in words: SEVEN!) terrorists! If that isn't evil.
I heard ETA and IRA got really envious when they got to know about Iraq's terrorist manpower.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What statement is that? Give me a break. I got sick of repeating myself for those who can't seem to follow along. [/B]

YOU? Sick of repeating yourself

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ya, as if. That is all you do. Repeat yourself over and over again. 4000+ posts of repeated innuendo.

[Face Ache]

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What statement is that? Give me a break. I got sick of repeating myself for those who can't seem to follow along. [/B]

What statement? Maybe these?

Sure it can, we were attacked by Terrorists. Iraq support these terrorists.

Give me a break. Saddam supports all of thist. You know this.

SH is for anything against the US. He supports ANY terrorism against the US, no matter WHO is behind it.

Or am I just dreaming you said that? The reason you had to repeat yourself is not because I can't "follow along", it's because you came with baseless statements and we challanged it!

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Developer:
What about reading?
I posted Powell's proof of Iraq's link to terrorism above. They have 7 (in words: SEVEN!) terrorists! If that isn't evil.
I heard ETA and IRA got really envious when they got to know about Iraq's terrorist manpower.

read this and then tell me what you think the actual "proof" is.

-r.

[tintub]

Originally posted by Developer:
What about reading?
I posted Powell's proof of Iraq's link to terrorism above. They have 7 (in words: SEVEN!) terrorists! If that isn't evil.
I heard ETA and IRA got really envious when they got to know about Iraq's terrorist manpower.

Could someone remind me where the IRA get most of their funding from? It wouldn't be money coming out of New York would it?

Americans supporting terrorism? NEVER!

[Logic]

Here is something some would enjoy(I think) and we will most likelly disagree on what it has to say about the US-Iraqi conflict.

The N�rnberg Tribunal condemned a war of aggression in the strongest terms: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." It held individuals accountable for "crimes against peace", defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing...." When the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the N�rnberg principles in 1946, it affirmed the principle of individual accountability for such crimes.

You can all guess my POV on this..... what's your?

[Developer]

Originally posted by Logic:
The N�rnberg Tribunal condemned a war of aggression in the strongest terms: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." It held individuals accountable for "crimes against peace", defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing...." When the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the N�rnberg principles in 1946, it affirmed the principle of individual accountability for such crimes.

How does anything of this apply to the French/German proposal?

[Mac Zealot]

France and germany are not the rest of the world. They're 2 modest countries with a bunch of arrogant people.

I will sorta quote this from the news, and it makes sense:

"We are dealing with a CRAZY man here, not a normal one."

And the US actually is a rather powerful country, where do most countries EXPORT to? think korea, taiwan, and south america OR mexico (two totally different places as mexico = the ghetto of spanish culture)

[simonjames]

Hhhmm - yet another topic derailed by Zimp's twaddle.


Well, it seems if anyone disagrees with the US's position on Iraq they're SH's butt kissers. I disagree with it and I can tell you my lips haven't been near a butt since my last pay rise.

It'll be interesting if the UN back the France/Germany plan.

[Logic]

Well not directly, but still it does in a way. Germany and France are against an attack on Iraq unless it's UN approved. Fra&Ger do not want to be the aggressor in this. They think as well as many in europe(as you should know) that the US is infact the aggressor in this case with the evidence they have shown us.

I know that they have not fully complied to some UN resolutions, but in my opinion(as well as many EU diplomats) resolution 1441 does not give the UN the right to invade Iraq.

Basically Fra&Ger wants this settled peacefully without any aggression or at worst with an UN resolution that according to international law would give them the right to invade, while the US puts emphasis on the aggressive part.

Hope that explains to you why I posted this.

[Developer]

To me that sounds most reasonable.

[Zarqawi's Stump]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Hhhmm - yet another topic derailed by Zimp's twaddle.

if you weren't lazy, you would have reviewed the thread from its beginning and seen where rjenkinson and others derailed the thread by not only asking but insisting that zimphire give detailed answers (a damned thesis they wanted) to off-topic questions. I on several occasions urged rjenkinson et al to stay on-topic--at risk of derailing the thread--or start a new thread devoted to their very specific concerns.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zarqawi's
........
I on several occasions urged rjenkinson et al to stay on-topic--at risk of derailing the thread--or start a new thread devoted to their very specific concerns.

Aren't you Atef, et al? Do you think many of us listen to your BS? Why am I answering you, I don't know......

Maybe because it's 06:50 AM and I have been awake for almost 23 hours and have to wake up after 3 hours to study for a test. Maybe I should go to sleep......


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZzzzzZZZzzzZZZZZzzz

[Zarqawi's Stump]

Originally posted by Logic:
Aren't you Atef, et al? Do you think many of us listen to your BS? Why am I answering you, I don't know......

It could be simply because you're a propagandising troll. I AM CORRECT, however, in my analysis of the thread's derailing. Ought to check it yourself and bask in the glow of my righteousness, rather than sniping in and out like that.

[Tristrami]

Okay, so I'm perplexed. Is Stumpy the new Atef, or is he someone who is an alter ego of Atef (who I thought was an alter ego)--like all those Star Wars ones? Or is Stumpy like the Yoda alter ego that's not in fact related to the orginal?

[simonjames]

I was beginning to think Atef and Spliffdaddy were the same person as Zimp but then I thought yes, there could be that many in the world.

[Spliffdaddy]

stop thinking then.

that way you'll stop being wrong all the damn time

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
What statement? Maybe these?


Or am I just dreaming you said that? The reason you had to repeat yourself is not because I can't "follow along", it's because you came with baseless statements and we challanged it!

Heh are you trying to say Saddam wouldn't be for anyone against the US? Please tell me you don't believe that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Hhhmm - yet another topic derailed by Zimp's twaddle.

I hope you are being sarcastic.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
Aren't you Atef, et al? Do you think many of us listen to your BS? Why am I answering you, I don't know......

Maybe because it's 06:50 AM and I have been awake for almost 23 hours and have to wake up after 3 hours to study for a test. Maybe I should go to sleep......


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZzzzzZZZzzzZZZZZzzz

What BS is that? What is said was dead on. rj derailed the topic, even after he was kindly asked to quit.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What BS is that? What is said was dead on. rj derailed the topic, even after he was kindly asked to quit.

in effect, my question did derail the thead. though that had more to do with you giving such half-assed answers to my original question than it did wih my asking it.

-r.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
in effect, my question did derail the thead. though that had more to do with you giving such half-assed answers to my original question than it did wih my asking it.

-r.

No the answers where pretty straight foward. What you mean is, I didn't give you the answers you was looking for, or wanted. There is a difference.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Face Ache:

rotflmao

good one!

[Troll]

Originally posted by NeoMac:
The French and German's oppose this and I haven't heard them give one good reason why.

These two democratic nations are not only defending a disctatorship, but they are taking the dictatorships word over that of a long time allied democracy.

Try and explain that one to me.

Joeschka Fisher told Rummie yesterday in no uncertain terms why the German government oppose this war. I haven't got a quote but he said something like, Germany is a democracy. In a democracy, I have to justify to the people that elected me why I am doing x, y or z. You have to persuade me that a war in Iraq is necessary so that I can go to the German people and tell them why we are going to war. You haven't done that.

France and Germany (and Russia and China) are not defending a dictatorship; they're defending a principle that is codified in international law and institutions and based on widely held moral beliefs. The principle being that war is a last resort, that the United Nations is the institution through which the use of force is legitimised. Bush and Rumsfeld have failed to persuade the leaders of France and Germany (and many other countries) despite the fact that they have given them access to information you and I have never seen. They have failed to persuade a large proportion of the global population (including a large number of Americans) that a war against Iraq is necessary. That's the issue. Do we need to kill Iraqi civilians, do we need to make their lives more difficult than they already are in order to prevent Iraq from posing a danger to peace? The answer to that question has been "no" for the last 10 years and the Bush administration hasn't persuaded a large number of people that anything has changed. If the US attacks Iraq without a UN resolution (1441 doesn't authorise force), irrespective of how many countries support the US effort, it will have acted contrary to the principles of the UN and arguably contrary to international law. I think attacking an Arab country contrary to international law will create more terrorists rather than fewer!

[Troll]

I was talking to an aeronautical engineer last night - a guy who has been involved in developing products for some of the forces that would be involved in a Gulf War. He had some interesting things to say. Firstly, the American helicopters' sand filters were not equipped to deal with the sand during the Gulf War and they spent more time being serviced than they did in the air. Low level air combat was virtually impossible. The sand issue has only partly been addressed. He also said that the US helicopters (and planes too) really battle in the summer heat in Iraq. They become sitting ducks in many cases, unable to carry heavy loads, manouevre to their full capabilities and slow and ungainly. The military advisors have apparently strongly warned against taking on Iraq in summer. March is seen as the cut-off after which time, they will not be able to rely on air support for a ground invasion. He also mentioned that the stationing of troops in the region presently costs around a billion dollars a day (puts the 15 billion Bush allocated to AIDS in context).

The way I see it, Bush HAS to go to war. He can't afford to keep the troops there indefinitely. He can't afford the consequences of withdrawing troops from the region without a major change in the situation. Bush has nailed his colours to the wall a bit prematurely I think, but the result is that he has to attack before summer. I don't think the decision will be motivated by moral considerations or considerations of international law.

[Logic]

I agree with you troll. I think the whole thing revolves around that. I think that most EU countries or at least their citizens are thinking somewhat like what I posted earlier from the Nuremburg trials. We(that is europeans or anti-americans as some call us) don't want war unless:

We get evidence that they pose a real threat to world peace.

That we get proof that they actually are in violation of the current resolutions.

And most importantly that the UN deside the course of action.

The first strike policy doesn't rank high in the Europe I know, and if we allow pre-emptive strikes we give others the chance to do it. Why would we ban, say Lebanon to attack Israel after the US has used this tactic. We don't want everyone to have the right to deside when to go to war and when not to.

"To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Heh are you trying to say Saddam wouldn't be for anyone against the US? Please tell me you don't believe that.

I didn't say that. You were saying that SH supports terrorists that strike the US. I said you were wrong. Then I began wondering what you meant by the word "support". You never answered. The meaning of support in your statements where important to how I would answer you. If you would say that, meaning support like you support a football team or something like that, you would be correct. But that gives no reason to attack them. If you meant it in the way that they give them money, shelter and supplies you are wrong.

But you never bothered to answer my question. It would take one sentence and after that we could get back on track.

[theolein]

What surprises me is the fact that people all over the place are quoting all sorts of things (whatever suits their logic best), I know I do, yet does anyone actually know what is really going on? I usually quote the BBC but the BBC seems to vacillate between articles supporting Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld/Blair/Howard and co. and articles by actual correspondants in the areas of interest usually showing a much more human side of the whole question.

Today there was an article on journalists visiting one of the sites claimed by Powell to be a chemical weapons lab. It didn't seem like it.

There is also an article on an interview with the "Doctor Germ" which lends credibility to Powells claims of hidden and mobile Bioweapons facilities.

The saddest article, to me, was the one about the people in the southern city of Basra, who seem to have suffered the most in the first Gulf war and Saddams represions since then, and who will probably suffer the most in the next war.

From all accounts, I think Saddam is about as evil, murderous, genocidal and dangerous as it is possible for a human being to be. I think it would be a good thing to rid the world of someone as dangerous as he is. I don't think anyone would miss him. I just find it horrible that so many normal Iraqis will die in any attempt to unseat saddam. Death and suffering are real and I find the comments here about killing them cynical and cold, coming from people who have never seen the effects of a war first hand. My comment would be that those people should go and do some of the fighting themselves, on the ground as foot soldiers, and then , if they survive, come back and report on the glory of killing and maiming other people. Some of them would, no doubt become real butchers and believe in what they were doing. But I doubt most would.

I personally feel that the the current US government is making enemies faster than they can cope with. I also feel that Donald Rumsfeld's antagonistic commments about "Old Europe" and "Germany, Syria and Libya" are making an enemy that has until recently, been a solid ally of the US. I think Rumsfeld's lack of tact is similar in it's style to that of certain multiple personality posters here on this board. i.e. Childish and non constructive. A lot of European politicians fear the consequences of openly confronting the US and all this has done is to create strife in those people's governments, at a time when the economy is already very bad. The populations of those countries will remember those words and regaining the support of those countries wil become a thing of near impossibility in the near future. And support the US DOES need because it is not an island.

Likewise it seems very much as if the PM's of the UK and Australia are acting against the wills of their populations. What that will probably mean is that booth of them will lose their next elections and that the general populatiosn of those countries will likewise become more antagonistic towards the US in the future.

I agree with the idea that unless the US had made it clear that they were going to topple Saddam by force the UN would never have been able to send inspectors in the first place. Saddam is obviously not going to cooperate with the UN unless he sees absolutely no other way out, and in that I can sympathise with the irriataion of the US government by Germany's absolute refusal to support any idea of war.

But that is short sighted because of one major thing: the opinions of the population of the world. No one wants a war. A war could very well cause the Pakistani regime to get toppled in a coup and could just as easily completely destablise Egypt and Saudi Arabia and sow the seeds of even more terrorism of the like of 9/11, and the bomb attacks in Bali. It could just as well (and it seems it is indeed doing so) serve as notice to North Korea that unless they actually DO threaten the region with an all out war, they will be next.

We now get to maintaining the occupied countries the US has captured. The US might have the worlds most powerful military by far (more powerful than the next 20 countries combined) and could no doubt defeat any comer in a war. But what about after the war has been won. Will the general populations be grateful or will it be a thing of being an occupying power suppressing a hostile population? In the muslim worl, I doubt that the US would be seen as liberators, ever, not unless the US used it's power to actually force Israel to negotiate a peace with the Palestinans, which the US will never do. In a country as diverse and mutually antagonistic as Iraq it will be doubly difficult. Do the Kurds resent the Turkish support of the US? Do the Shi'ites resent beingonce again the people to suffer the most in a conflict? Would the government set up by the US be representive of all Iraqi's? Is a democracy even possibel in Iraq? Would the Sh'ites try to unify with Iran? Would Iran be next on the US list for supporting Iraqi shi'ites covertly?

I find it very difficult to belive Powell's support for an Al-Qaida-Iraq link. It might be true but comes across more as an attempt to manipulate public opinion back in the US.

I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps trying to get the UN to demand saddams abdication would be more constructive and more popular than making the case that Iraq is about to attack any regional country and give bioweapons to Al-Qaida. It might be more popular if the case was based on humanitarian grounds rather than, difficult to prove Iraqi aggression.

As a closing line I would like to say that no empire has lasted for ever. Empires based on suppression at home are even quicker to unravel, and the Patirot II bill that has been drafted reminds me of Herman Goering at the N�remburg trials after WWII claiming that maintaining power is easiest when you can convince the population that they are under attack.

[Zarqawi's Stump]

Originally posted by Tristrami:
Okay, so I'm perplexed. Is Stumpy the new Atef,

unfortunately yes. Atef was apparently banned for Reasons Unknown, so Allah reanimated me, the amputated leg (stump) of Zarqawi. Zarqawi traveled to Baghdad for medical care, and his leg (me!) was amputated. The Iraqis kept me around, however, for bio experiments (hence my location), and now Allah has shown great mercy upon me and has given me the Holy Mission of fighting for truth, justice, and sanity here at MacNN.

Insh Allah, I will prevail in my struggle to bring enlightenment and knowledge to the weak-minded infidels listing aimlessly among you like lobotomised cattle in a rancher's herd.

[Tristrami]

whatever. still no life, eh?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zarqawi's Stump:
unfortunately yes. Atef was apparently banned for Reasons Unknown, so Allah reanimated me, the amputated leg (stump) of Zarqawi. Zarqawi traveled to Baghdad for medical care, and his leg (me!) was amputated. The Iraqis kept me around, however, for bio experiments (hence my location), and now Allah has shown great mercy upon me and has given me the Holy Mission of fighting for truth, justice, and sanity here at MacNN.

Insh Allah, I will prevail in my struggle to bring enlightenment and knowledge to the weak-minded infidels listing aimlessly among you like lobotomised cattle in a rancher's herd.

Atef earned his dismissal with his attitude. You are the same person and you should not be here, because it isn't the nick that is banned but the user.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
I didn't say that. You were saying that SH supports terrorists that strike the US. I said you were wrong.

I am? Prove to me he didn't support them. I'll be waiting.

Then I began wondering what you meant by the word "support". You never answered. The meaning of support in your statements where important to how I would answer you. If you would say that, meaning support like you support a football team or something like that, you would be correct. But that gives no reason to attack them. If you meant it in the way that they give them money, shelter and supplies you are wrong.

Again provide some proof. The US government and the Birtish government seems to think he did. But of course I am sure you have intelligence that they don't, and know better.

But you never bothered to answer my question. It would take one sentence and after that we could get back on track.

Gee what question would that be?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Atef earned his dismissal with his attitude. You are the same person and you should not be here, because it isn't the nick that is banned but the user.

His attitude is no different the some of the leftists in here that constantly make anti-US or anti-BUsh topics daily that are full of FUD. Lets not go into how hypocritical banning him was. MacNN has never been known to be unbiased though. Not surprised. At least he is presenting facts and backing them up. That is why he is disliked. He has the BS meter and uses it. The BSrs don't like it.

[Zarqawi's Stump]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
His attitude is no different the some of the leftists in here that constantly make anti-US or anti-BUsh topics daily that are full of FUD. Lets not go into how hypocritical banning him was. MacNN has never been known to be unbiased though. Not surprised. At least he is presenting facts and backing them up. That is why he is disliked. He has the BS meter and uses it. The BSrs don't like it.

Precisely. My 'attitude' is deliberatey molded in the image of certain users--voodoo and hawkeye_a mainly. I am aggressive to counter their aggressiveness. I am at times rude and belittle the left-wingers, just as the left-wingers belittle others (even moderates). I ridicule (and for good reason) some Europeans and their policies, just as The Great Satan is a perpetual point of ridicule for many on the boards.

It is indeed unfair for me to be banned when my actions are moderate compared to others. And I keep myself confined largely to the political and foreign policy threads, which, as you know, are often heated, opinionated, and frequented by the masochists who enjoy being intellectually pistol-whipped by Simey and, on occasion, myself.

I bring balance, infidels. This balance is NOT achieved by lies, distortion, thread hijacking, or propagandising--those tactics are for the left-wingers, pacifists, and appeasers. Rather, the balance I bring is founded in logical argument, fact- and history-based statements deftly and concisely written for your enlightenment.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Zarqawi's Stump:

I bring balance, infidels. This balance is NOT achieved by lies, distortion, thread hijacking, or propagandising--those tactics are for the left-wingers, pacifists, and appeasers. Rather, the balance I bring is founded in logical argument, fact- and history-based statements deftly and concisely written for your enlightenment.

Ladies and gentlemen. May I present to you the ultimate oxymoron. It is truly the deluded mind (or a very young one) that deems itself the harbringer of all thing TRUE in all circumstances and all times. This has nothing to do with political leanings but it has a lot to do with mental stability.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Zarqawi's Stump:
Precisely. My 'attitude' is deliberatey molded in the image of certain users--voodoo and hawkeye_a mainly. I am aggressive to counter their aggressiveness. I am at times rude and belittle the left-wingers, just as the left-wingers belittle others (even moderates). I ridicule (and for good reason) some Europeans and their policies, just as The Great Satan is a perpetual point of ridicule for many on the boards.

It is indeed unfair for me to be banned when my actions are moderate compared to others. And I keep myself confined largely to the political and foreign policy threads, which, as you know, are often heated, opinionated, and frequented by the masochists who enjoy being intellectually pistol-whipped by Simey and, on occasion, myself.

I bring balance, infidels. This balance is NOT achieved by lies, distortion, thread hijacking, or propagandising--those tactics are for the left-wingers, pacifists, and appeasers. Rather, the balance I bring is founded in logical argument, fact- and history-based statements deftly and concisely written for your enlightenment.