Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 916
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:05 pm Post subject: | |||
The world has been fighting terrorism for a very long time, Footsoldier. Your president used that "either/or" statement as an unfair ultimatum to get the world to go along with his invasion (of Iraq) plan. Well guess what? Things sure didn't work out in his or your favour and by using that statement he's used up his most valuable chip. No longer can he use 911 as a crutch to get the world's attention. And you shouldn't use it either. The more you use it as an ultimatum, the more you alienate people, whole nations. Instead of using empty, baseless ultimatums, you should try using REAL FACTS to get people/nations on your side. I know it's going to be hard at first, but you have to start somewhere. 
|
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 12:10 am Post subject: | |||
I agree 100% believe it or not.......and we are well within our rights to use our economic muscle to punish those who dont want to be on our side in this fight. Every country has a right to their own decision........just dont piss and moan about what happens later. |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:55 am Post subject: | |||
Thank-you for demonstrating the US's "petty and spiteful" behaviour as I alluded to earlier. 
|
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:37 am Post subject: | |
|
sLEK... of course France has a right to choose which side of an argument they wish to be on.... regardless of how many sides there might be to it. Wouldn't you also agree that the United States ALSO has the right to choose who and where we deploy resources in the future to help preserve and defend freedom... including the right not to come to the defense of France the next time the "bully" comes calling?
When it comes to terrorism, I don't know how many more sides there are other than "for em, or against em". As for those who ordered and those who carried out the orders for the 9/11 attacks, are you suggesting they might have been justified in some way? Or were you fully "against em" on that day? Just looking for the point when the issue gets black and white for you because you're projecting a very "gray" image when it comes to terrorism. "Footie" |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 916
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 1:13 pm Post subject: | |||
When it comes to barbaric invasions, resulting in the killing of thousands of innocent women and children, I don't know how many more sides there are other than "for em, or against em". Just looking for the point when the issue gets black and white for you because you're projecting a very "gray" image when it comes to killing innocent women and children. K |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 1:41 pm Post subject: | |||
The entire premise of your argument rests upon the assumption that the Iraq invasion is just. You may believe that it's just, but your belief doesn't necessarily make it so. I know you've heard this a billion times before but I'm going say it one more time: Iraq did not attack the US. Thus waging a war of aggression against Iraq is fundamentally misguided and, as such, you should expect, and indeed you received, little support from other nations. You'll note that France did send troops to Afghanistan. You'll also note that Canada, another country that refused support for Iraq, sent troops to Afghanistan as well. What does this indicate? It indicates that you had the support of nations when the US's WoT was actually targetting terrorists. You cannot prove that Iraq was a threat to the US. You can prove that Hussein's an asshole, you can prove that the Iraqi people were living in a horrible environment under him, you can prove that ousting Hussein was US policy, and you can prove that Iraq violated several UN resolutions. However none of those pose a threat to US security and none of those are responsible for the WtC attacks. You can deny that the entire premise of the Iraq invasion was WmD's and a threat to US security till you're blue in the face for all I care. It doesn't change the fact that it was and that those very specific allegations were used by the Bush administration to garner support from other nations and the American public. You cannot deny the fact that no WmD's have been found. And you cannot deny the fact that there is no hard, nor damning, evidence linking Iraq to terrorists. Thus, as the pretense for the invasion has proven itself almost completely false, you have no choice but to acknowledge the fact that France, Canada, and every other nation that did not offer support for the Iraq invasion, were correct in their judgement. So, the US certainly does have the right to ignore nations in dire need, but if they actually chose to exercise that right as payback of sorts, they'd be acting petty and spiteful to a most pitiful degree. Is that "black & white" enough for ya? |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:20 pm Post subject: | |
|
Your responses appear to refuse to even consider the possibility that Saddam Hussein MIGHT have had something to do with 9/11 in some indirect way. The driver of the getaway car is just as guilty of murder as those who fire the shots, to use a legal analogy.
IF any terrorists were trained in Iraq.... IF any Iraqi funds were used to support Al Kaida..... IF any terrorists were harbored in Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11..... of IF any other indirect support was provided to them by Saddam's evil government, then he, and his former regime are just as guilty as Osama Bin Laden and his bunch. As for the killing of innocent women and children.... I'd suggest that you focus your anger on the INTENTIONAL MURDERING of Saddam's own people... men, women, and children over the years. Any death is tragic but I see a huge difference between an act to free the people from the tyranny of Saddam and the calculated murdering of his own people. I know this is a difficult concept for you to grasp or accept, but the REAL crimes were committed by the Iraqi government, not the United States and their UN alliance. Footie |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:09 pm Post subject: | |||
Lot's of if's and maybe's in there Footie. Last time I checked, wars of aggression required proof; actual evidence, not speculation. Nevertheless, you haven't really addressed anything I've stated above. So, I'll accept that as an admission of your inability to dispute it and I hope that you'll keep that in mind the next time you decide to wrongfully denounce France or any other nation that rightfully disagrees with the US's policies and actions. |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:50 pm Post subject: | |
|
This entire thread began over a snub of a man who had nothing to do with France, Iraq, Saddam Hussein or aggression of any kind.
So I guess we're resigned to the fact that Ronald Reagan was the innocent victim of a little spat between ChIRAQ and Bush, is that the way you see it? If so, not much diplomacy shown. I'll stand by every comment I've made on this subject....and YOU have not written anything that disputes anything I've said either. I admitted they might be "ifs" but you don't know for certain that I'm not dead on right either. Looks like a standoff to me. Footie |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:20 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||
Incorrect. This entire thread began with a petty and spiteful attack on a country for spurious and highly illogical reasons.
Incorrect again. You have no evidence that there was a "spat", at least not on behalf of Chirac and the French people. Nor do you have any evidence to suggest that Chirac's reason for not attending was illegitimate.
Ignorance is not a defense...
... nor is intellectual dishonesty.
Might be if's? What's with the ambiguity? They clearly are if's and clearly indefensible.
If it makes you feel better to believe that, by all means, keep the faith. 
|
|||||||||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:23 pm Post subject: | |||||||
Slek wrote:
Reasons for War with Iraq
These were the words of President Bill Clinton in 1998. |
|||||||