Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 82
  1. #41  
    I think we will never be able to convince the UN that we were preemtively defending the United States when we invaded Iraq (nor me for that matter). But to just run away from the UN because of that, that seems cowardly to me. There is nothing we can do about whether Iraq was right or wrong, the problem at hand is rebuilding Iraq and we can use all the help we can get. Lets show some diplomacy and leadership and make the UN work with us the best we can.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Unfortunately. this mentality of "I'm right so you have no right to speak against me" seems to be the liberals newest game plan.
    you conservatives should take it as a compliment. after all imitation is the most sincere form of flattery
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/17/2004 at 02:51 PM.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by zackz
    I posted a link as to where I got this. There are more polite ways to ask for the source of info.
    Could you please point out in your linked story where it said fewer US troops would have died if the UN were involved?

    Quote Originally Posted by zackz
    Might not, atleast there would be troops from other countries to share the burden if you will. Mathematically if the major countries of the world sent troops, the probability of US troops dying is less than if US troops going it alone. That's what is my opinion. The basis is probability.
    So total casualties isnt important as long as there are fewer Americans dying?


    Quote Originally Posted by zackz
    The less I say about the above, the better. There are a number of people here who disagree, but they are polite about how they disagree. Woof, with you I'm simply going to do what others do. Set the ignore bit.
    I dont believe anyone here has ever accused me of being polite. I have not however been impolite. I at least dont consider calling an opinion foolish, impolite. Now if I had called you a stupid moron, you could have a point. See comment at the bottom about ignore.

    I can say this repeatedly but some people never will hear it anyway. I am NOT attacking you, I am disagreeing with your statements. When you have to throw up the boo hoo card it really detracts from your argument.

    I personally could care less what someone thinks of me here. I am not here to get a back rub or kisses on the cheek, I am here to discuss the topic at hand. Persoanlly attacking someone on the basis of one opinion on one subject would be stupid anyway. If I want to attack you I'll will do what I can to know as much about you as possible so the attack is at least worthwhile. I cant base my judgement of someone one a thread on a board so why would I bother to attack them? I wouldnt. I would disagree with them on the subject of discussion. Please stop thinking so much of yourself that you think I am after you.

    It is far more fun to discuss with people of the opposite viewpoint that are capable of accepting an opposite viewpoint. (cellmatrix, clulup, peterbrown)

    Back to the subject.

    Zackz, I know youre not ignoring me. This is for you.

    If you had said " we may not have lost as many of our troops if the UN presence had been there" instead of
    Quote Originally Posted by zackz
    "If US had UN backing the causualties would alteast wouldn't be a 1000 men/women.
    I wouldnt have called you on it. You did NOT say the possibility of lesser casualties, you said matter of factly that that would have been the case. I argued with that and called it foolish, because again THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW FOR SURE WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN ANY OTHER SITUATION. Anyone with any sense, regardless of political bent, knows that it is pure supposition and guesswork to talk about how things would have turned out. There is no way of knowing and you know it.

    If you are ignoring me it just proves that you are not capable of holding your own in a discussion. Especially if you have made a comment that holds no water and are unwilling to admit it. I'll admit when I am wrong, but you'll have to prove it to me. I wont hide behind the Ignore button because I cant win in a discussion. That would be cowardly IMO, and show absolutely no conviction in my own point of view.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    you conservatives should take it as a compliment. after all imitation is the most sincere form of flattery
    LOL Now that wasnt a personal attack was it?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  5. #45  
    chick it was the point of the exchange between myself and zackz
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  6.    #46  
    Hey Wuff...*kiss on the cheek*
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I think we will never be able to convince the UN that we were preemtively defending the United States when we invaded Iraq (nor me for that matter). But to just run away from the UN because of that, that seems cowardly to me. There is nothing we can do about whether Iraq was right or wrong, the problem at hand is rebuilding Iraq and we can use all the help we can get. Lets show some diplomacy and leadership and make the UN work with us the best we can.
    I agree cellmatrix, in fact I feel we have a better chance of rebuilding iraq under the UN umbrella rather than going it alone.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I would suspect that more soldiers would have been killed. The difference being the UN Pieacekeepers. I doubt that any additional troops would be as highly trained or as well equiped as US soldiers. MHO
    Please check your facts. U.S. forces ARE and HAVE BEEN U.N. Peacekeepers. I served as one for three years.
  9. #49  
    chick youre right I did ask. And that was the question I wanted answered. Your saying it wasnt the point is what I was disputing. It was the point. It was the point of what I asked the group and the point of my discussion with zackz.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  10. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    why cant you just respond to the content of the post instead of making inane remarks? You totally avoid the issue at hand.

    You ignore my posts because you cant come up with anything to say to them. If you can please do so. Respond to the points about your UN comments please.
    I will answer the question for you. It is a well documented fact (you can google to prove this to yourself, just give me a few hours to make a nice webpage that says it) that liberals tend to argue emotionally, and not logically.

    When confronted with factual information, the liberal will either reply with inane comments - something like "yeah, well, sos your mother" or "that may be true, but he still wears ugly shoes" - or attack the source of factual information - "Foxnews, well that says it all." while listening to NPR and Dan Rather for the truth.

    Liberals don't go with the option that seems the most logical in the real world, but rather what would give the most "warm fuzzies" in a perfect world.

    I don't says that all conservatives are logical, but only that liberalism avoids logic.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by Theta
    I will answer the question for you. It is a well documented fact (you can google to prove this to yourself, just give me a few hours to make a nice webpage that says it) that liberals tend to argue emotionally, and not logically.

    When confronted with factual information, the liberal will either reply with inane comments - something like "yeah, well, sos your mother" or "that may be true, but he still wears ugly shoes" - or attack the source of factual information - "Foxnews, well that says it all." while listening to NPR and Dan Rather for the truth.

    Liberals don't go with the option that seems the most logical in the real world, but rather what would give the most "warm fuzzies" in a perfect world.

    I don't says that all conservatives are logical, but only that liberalism avoids logic.

    And clearly Theta your are a bit more right that zackz.

    I knew I wouldnt get an answer from him. Welcome to the land of personal attacks. Thats all us slightly to the right of center do to the left you know. Attack attack attack.

    Thanks for your posts, I am enjoying your input.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12. #52  
    Anyone who claims that liberals argue emotionally has a big fat arse.
    Animo et Fide
  13.    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Anyone who claims that liberals argue emotionally has a big fat arse.
    I try to keep mine toned
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  14. #54  
    And which countries are those, that the UN set up on its own as an independent entity.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    As for the UN not supporting democracy, it's helped set up several democracies in recent years, far more succesfully than the US! (Although not as successful as Britain )
  15. #55  
    Re the UN, if it were not for the US, the UN would cease to exist. It exists only due to the US funding it and giving it a place to squat. Ben
  16. #56  
    UN presence means nothing. When the UN gets its *** kicked, out it goes. No stomach for the real work to be done. It cries and whines and when money is withheld from it, gosh does it *****! You owe, you owe, you owe and frankly, hang the UN. It has never done anything for the US, its major contibutor.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    For the group:

    Does anyone else here think it is foolish to assume that just UN presence will have any effect on the loss of life? Will the UN banner alter the other sides tactics or perspective? Is there any proof that this is the case?
  17. #57  
    This is amazing. You speak of major countries. You are aware that the "major" countries you write of were involved in deals with Iraq throughout the period it was balking against the UN sanctions. Look at France. Look at Germany. Look at Russia. Look at the UN. In addition, the Oil for Food program administered by the UN was a farce! During the early stages of the war, Russia had techs in Iraq maintaining their high-tech equipment, such as radar. They were there until told by Bush that if they stayed, they would end up like the Iraqis. Now, tell me this, is this an indication of true friendship?

    Only because of the recent terrorist strikes in Russia is Russia now into the anti-terror thing. France has yet to learn about terror, but they will. Continue to back off the terrorists, appease them and that means one of two things. One, you'll be the last to be killed, or you will be killed sometime. It means definitely that you are begging to be killed. Not backing off from them means you may be killed, but they will be killed.

    So please do not waste time speaking of the major powers, et cetera. They never wanted this war - it meant financial losses to them. They frankly did not care about lives, just money.

    Bush did what he could for support and went from there.

    Ben



    Quote Originally Posted by zackz
    I posted a link as to where I got this. There are more polite ways to ask for the source of info.



    Might not, atleast there would be troops from other countries to share the burden if you will. Mathematically if the major countries of the world sent troops, the probability of US troops dying is less than if US troops going it alone. That's what is my opinion. The basis is probability.



    The less I say about the above, the better. There are a number of people here who disagree, but they are polite about how they disagree. Woof, with you I'm simply going to do what others do. Set the ignore bit.
  18. #58  
    And how is the US not asking for UN involvement at this point? It has asked and asked and its been in the papers, the major news, even Fox, the best news network in the US of A. The UN says yes but has yet to commit itself. It will not. The US cannot make the UN work with it until it demonstrates the clout it is capable of doing so. With France, Russia and China in their positions, we get only what they want us to have. Frankly with the France and China, that is not much.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I think we will never be able to convince the UN that we were preemtively defending the United States when we invaded Iraq (nor me for that matter). But to just run away from the UN because of that, that seems cowardly to me. There is nothing we can do about whether Iraq was right or wrong, the problem at hand is rebuilding Iraq and we can use all the help we can get. Lets show some diplomacy and leadership and make the UN work with us the best we can.
  19. #59  
    The UN recently helped a part of Indonesia to independence ending years of suppression, also in recent years it's helped calm down the situation in the Congo to the point where elections can take place. Need any more examples?
    Surely you'll have seen all this on the news though?
    Animo et Fide
  20. #60  
    How is the US going this alone? We have asked and there are other countries helping us. Those other countries are not part of the US. Frankly, when this country asks multiple times and does not gets results, then look to the UN for the problem, not the US. The UN umbrella is crap. When things get tough, out it goes. The US should consider drastically reducing its funding of the UN - let the UN go it alone.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by zackz
    I agree cellmatrix, in fact I feel we have a better chance of rebuilding iraq under the UN umbrella rather than going it alone.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions