Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 474
  1. #41  
    Originally posted by yardie
    The articles ..especially the first one were nothing more than a rehash of the same old Republican/Hawkish arguement.. That Iraq poses a threat to its neighbour blah blah. I do not see its neighbours getting worried. Why should the U.S be worried?
    AAMOF, I am not a republican or a hawk. Neither is Hitchens (he's more a trotskyist). Do you think Israel is unconcerned about Saddam? Or the Kurds are unconcerned about Saddam? Qatar seems to have no problems at all with the US on this matter. The big question with nearly all concerned seems to be one of timing and method. 'We won't unless X or until Y.' Nearly no one is saying 'we won't' or 'we can't'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2.    #42  
    Originally posted by yardie
    OK they have so called waepons of mass destruction and possess chemical and biological weapons. Doesn't other countries including the U.S. possess weapons of mass destruction as well?
    As far as I know there haven't been UN Resolutions demanding we get rid of them. If you trust our gov't less than a dictators, I think you need to rethink a lot of things.

    Originally posted by yardie
    OK some argue that Iraw that Saddam uses his using his weapons against his own people.... well guess what folks? The crippinling sanctions against Iraq is also being used as a weapon against the Irawi people..and with deadly results.
    I agree that sanctions are hurting people, but the right comparison is whether they are worse off than if we allowed the gov't to amass these weapons. That's debatable, but ousting the leadership will immediately end all sanctions. So in that sense you gave a great reason for goiing to war.
  3.    #43  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Are you kidding me? Even the EPA say that Global Warming is a real phenomena..not hypothetical.

    "I should have..." always come too late.

    But no one has proven that it is a manmade phenomenon. Perhaps more importantly, no one has proven that it is a bad thing. They may be, don't get me wrong (I think we are contributing to it) but as of right now we admit doom and gloom forecasts have been wrong.
  4.    #44  
    Originally posted by yardie
    That Iraq poses a threat to its neighbour blah blah. I do not see its neighbours getting worried.
    Hm.... of course they've never invaded neighbors before. I haven't heard anything about them lobbing missiles into Israel either.
  5. #45  
    Ha come on man, the U.S. is itching to get into Iraq. War is a great way to galvanize the people and get votes. .. It just so happens that the U.S mid-term elections are right around the corner.


    Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons that they can use against each other at any time. The U.S made a big fuss about it a few years back -- but now that they have enlisted Pakistan in the War for Oil.. I mean War on Terrorism, they have ignored the issue -- Typical U.S style.

    The U.S. had no qualms when Saddam was using biological weapons during the Iran-Iraw war. In fact, they tacitly supported. I bet a lot of the stuff that Saddam has is from the U.S.


    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]Ultimately, the US doesn't want to invade Iraq. [B]Nearly all of the other countries that possess nuclear weapons (by treaty, none should possess chemical or biological of the sort being discussed with Saddam) are relatively stable and unlikely to use them on their own or other peoples. Saddam has demonstrated a willingness to do both. Who is using it as a weapon against them? The terms are supposed to provide them with enough funds and food to live on. If those funds and food are not getting to the intended people, then it seems that it's _more_ reason to oust Saddam, not to appease him by lifting sanctions.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  6. #46  
    Its funny how we believe in science when it is convenient for us (cure for diseases etc.)...but not when it is not (i.e. proof that global warming exist).

    The writing is on the wall folks. A big chunk of the Antarctic the size of New Jersey just broke off the shelf -- this should not eb happening. Iskands in the Pacific are sinking -- this should not be happen.

    I fear that Americans will wake up only when New York City start to go under water.


    Originally posted by Toby
    And in the case of such religious 'global cooling' or 'global warming' alarmist propaganda, "we were wrong" never comes at all...only the next alarmist doomsday scenario.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  7. #47  
    I would argue that Israel is NOT concerned about Iraq. Isreal knows that if Saddam attacks he is finish. Israel has enough bukes ot wipe Iraq off the map.

    Qatar is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The U.S probably gave them a billion or two to use their land and airspace.

    Originally posted by Toby
    AAMOF, I am not a republican or a hawk. Neither is Hitchens (he's more a trotskyist). Do you think Israel is unconcerned about Saddam? Or the Kurds are unconcerned about Saddam? Qatar seems to have no problems at all with the US on this matter. The big question with nearly all concerned seems to be one of timing and method. 'We won't unless X or until Y.' Nearly no one is saying 'we won't' or 'we can't'.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  8. #48  
    Well if the U.S is going to be the enforcer of UN Resolutions, they ought to force Isreal to follow the UN Resolution stipuilating that they pull back to their pre-1967 boundary.


    Originally posted by KRamsauer


    As far as I know there haven't been UN Resolutions demanding we get rid of them. If you trust our gov't less than a dictators, I think you need to rethink a lot of things.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  9.    #49  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Well if the U.S is going to be the enforcer of UN Resolutions, they ought to force Isreal to follow the UN Resolution stipuilating that they pull back to their pre-1967 boundary.


    And I agree. I've always maintained that Israel has some serious conceeding to do. That doesn't mean that it's right to ignore the UN. You keep mentioning comparisons that do nothing to further your point.
  10. #50  
    Well I think you miss my point. let me refresh your memory. I am opposed to the War on Iraq becuase there is no solid proof tghat Saddam is a threat to anyone -- definitely not the U.S.

    On the issue with theU.N, my argument is that if resolutions are going to be enforced, then it should be enforced on an equitable basis. Which means force (military or economic) should be used on all countries (inluding Israel) that defies UN resolutions. The U.S has always maintained a double-standard when it comes to their foreign policy.



    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    And I agree. I've always maintained that Israel has some serious conceeding to do. That doesn't mean that it's right to ignore the UN. You keep mentioning comparisons that do nothing to further your point.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  11.    #51  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Well I think you miss my point. let me refresh your memory. I am opposed to the War on Iraq becuase there is no solid proof that Saddam is a threat to anyone.
    Wow. That's a tough thing to say in light of the events of the last 30 years.

    Originally posted by yardie
    On the issue with theU.N, my argument is that if resolutions are going to be enforced, then it should be enforced on an equitable basis. Which means force (military or economic) should be used on all countries (inluding Israel) that defies UN resolutions. The U.S has always maintained a double-standard when it comes to their foreign policy.
    So you're saying we should ignore both Israel and Iraq?
  12. #52  
    What events would that be?

    I am saying that IF the U.S. is going to be the world's policeman and enforce U.N resolutions -- then it should do so for very country -- not just the ones they dislike. The U.S would get a lot more respect and support if it stop being two faced.


    Originally posted by KRamsauer

    Wow. That's a tough thing to say in light of the events of the last 30 years.

    So you're saying we should ignore both Israel and Iraq?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  13.    #53  
    Originally posted by yardie
    What events would that be?

    I am saying that IF the U.S. is going to be the world's policeman and enforce U.N resolutions -- then it should do so for very country -- not just the ones they dislike. The U.S would get a lot more respect and support if it stop being two faced.
    You said Iraq is not a threat to anyone. Kuwait, Iran, Israel, and the Kurds would probably all disagree. So you are saying that you don't object to the US enforcing UN resolutions on Iraq via force, you simply object to the uneven application of that principle around the globe.
  14. #54  
    I bguess its the battle of the Mice now eh?

    Kuwait and the Kurds probably see Iraw as a threat. But it it doubtful that Iran and Israel feel the same. Israel can easily take on the Arab world on its own. Adding to this, it has enough nukes to wipe Iraw off the map. I dont see Iran cheering for the Americans to go into Iraq..in fact they too have reservations about an invasion.

    And yes, I would have been more inclined to support the U.S position if they had a more consistent foreign policy. They would hve gotten a lot more Arab support for an Iraq invasion is they were doing more on the Israeli-Palestinian file.

    Originally posted by KRamsauer

    You said Iraq is not a threat to anyone. Kuwait, Iran, Israel, and the Kurds would probably all disagree. So you are saying that you don't object to the US enforcing UN resolutions on Iraq via force, you simply object to the uneven application of that principle around the globe.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  15. #55  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Ha come on man, the U.S. is itching to get into Iraq.
    Don't confuse a few hawks in the administration with the country as a whole.
    War is a great way to galvanize the people and get votes.
    Would that be why there were several last minute strikes before Clinton left office?
    .. It just so happens that the U.S mid-term elections are right around the corner.
    And if the Democrats had any real evidence that Saddam wasn't a threat and the Bushies are trumping up nothing, one would think they'd release it.
    Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons that they can use against each other at any time. The U.S made a big fuss about it a few years back -- but now that they have enlisted Pakistan in the War for Oil.. I mean War on Terrorism, they have ignored the issue -- Typical U.S style.
    Last time I checked Pakistan and India weren't controlled by someone like Saddam. You seem to not understand the concept of degree. Having nuclear weapons isn't a problem in and of itself. Let's illustrate the problem of degree with an example not directly related: do you think abortion is wrong and should be a crime? Now, do you think a mother drowning a newborn is wrong and should be a crime? Do you think a mother drowning a 2-year-old is wrong and should be a crime? You going to honestly say degree isn't a real issue?
    The U.S. had no qualms when Saddam was using biological weapons during the Iran-Iraw war. In fact, they tacitly supported. I bet a lot of the stuff that Saddam has is from the U.S.
    Last I checked, we've gone through several presidents since then, and I'd be willing to bet that if you told that to the general public, they'd consider it _more_ of a reason to go in there and get rid of it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #56  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Its funny how we believe in science when it is convenient for us (cure for diseases etc.)...but not when it is not (i.e. proof that global warming exist).
    Not confusing correlation with causation is a basic scientific principle. Global temperatures rise and fall in cycles. In geologic terms, ISTR that we're on the tail-end of the last Ice Age, so global temperatures are _supposed_ to be rising. Eventually, they will start falling again.
    The writing is on the wall folks. A big chunk of the Antarctic the size of New Jersey just broke off the shelf -- this should not eb happening. Iskands in the Pacific are sinking -- this should not be happen.
    Why not? The planet is a 'living' entity that changes and evolves just like everything else. When we get to be a level 1 society, let me know, and then I'll be concerned.
    I fear that Americans will wake up only when New York City start to go under water.
    Personally, that wouldn't matter much to me. I more concerned about other man-trying-to-control-nature projects that have failed causing coastal erosion in my 'back yard'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #57  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Well I think you miss my point. let me refresh your memory. I am opposed to the War on Iraq becuase there is no solid proof tghat Saddam is a threat to anyone -- definitely not the U.S.
    And without getting inspectors back into the country with unrestricted access, there is no proof that he _isn't_ a threat (when the very inspectors that were forced out demonstrated that he very well probably is at this point).
    On the issue with theU.N, my argument is that if resolutions are going to be enforced, then it should be enforced on an equitable basis.
    Was the resolution in question a _Security_Council_ resolution or a General Assembly resolution?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #58  
    Geez...even Droopy seems to be supporting this thing. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110002391
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19.    #59  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Geez...even Droopy seems to be supporting this thing. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110002391
    As a CT native I know more than most (well, more than some, anyway. ) about ol' Joe. He has more backbone than most do. He's willing to stand up and call them as he see's them, party affiliation be damned. He's a very upstanding person, too. However ever since he was nominated for the VPship, man, it's all been politics! Unfortunately I think this is one of those cases where he sees his presidential aspirations linked to being on the "right" side of this conflict. It's almost as if he got together with Al and said "I'll be for the war, you be against the war, and if the war turns out great, I'll run in 2004, and if it turns into Vietnam, you're the Democratic horse."

    Ever the pessimist.....

    Kurt
  20. #60  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    As a CT native I know more than most (well, more than some, anyway. ) about ol' Joe. He has more backbone than most do. He's willing to stand up and call them as he see's them, party affiliation be damned. He's a very upstanding person, too. However ever since he was nominated for the VPship, man, it's all been politics! Unfortunately I think this is one of those cases where he sees his presidential aspirations linked to being on the "right" side of this conflict. It's almost as if he got together with Al and said "I'll be for the war, you be against the war, and if the war turns out great, I'll run in 2004, and if it turns into Vietnam, you're the Democratic horse."

    Ever the pessimist.....
    Well, I'm more a cynic or realist depending on the situation (although I do have an optimist slant on occasion). In this case, Joe's actions suggest to me that Israel takes Saddam more seriously than yardie thinks. I didn't catch Bushie's speech, but I was rather surprised to even see Feinstein supporting him on Hardball. Surreal. The Bushies are obviously playing this with some great strategy. As an article I read said, I think they're playing to the appeasers' weaknesses by giving them another 'madman' to appease.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions