Cidien Wrote:An illegal war? Now you've got to be kidding me! Yes, Bush took a course of action which seriously undermined the credibility of the UN out of dedication to upholding UN authority. The UN gave Saddam MANY chances to let weapons inspectors into his country and gave him MANY chances to show them that he has disarmed. Saddam IGNORED the UN. The UN in their resolutions promised war to remove Saddam if Saddam did not comply. The UN did nothing, so Bush did. The Bush did the job of the UN because they UN refused to do it. If you don't believe me look up the UN resolutions yourself. They state very clearly what they would do is Saddam did not comply.
The secretary of the UN said so. You are a pretty smart guy but I do think he's smarter and has more knowledge on the subject.
Once again, there were weapons inspectors let in. They weren't allowed to fininsh because Bush patience was gone and he invaded. When the final weapons inspectors report came out it stated: No WMD found.
The UN resolution did not promise war. It said something along the lines of 'if they don't comply there will be serious consequences'. No where did it say Iraq would be invaded or there would be war. You say it does. Show me where.
This is where all the arguments come from. The US sees this resolution as saying there would be war if they didn't comply and all the countries opposed think that the resolution didn't say that. The resolution was to vague and Bush used it.
And this is very important since I see resemblance with WWII: Why do you believe its the US right to invade a country on their own. Do other countries also have this right? What if Spain, who also suffered a devestating terrorist attack, decided to invade Moroko where some of the terrorists came from?
Seriously, this scares me that a country can do this and get away with it. Last time this happened Saddam invaded Kuwait and he didn't get away with it but the US does.
"The secretary of the UN said so. You are a pretty smart guy but I do think he's smarter and has more knowledge on the subject."
The UN is corrupt and i'd support the U.S. pulling out all money/support from the UN. Most people don't want to lose our veto power though. (I don't think that will matter long if we pull out but whatever) But most people do think the UN needs to undergo some serious changes.
"Once again, there were weapons inspectors let in. They weren't allowed to fininsh because Bush patience was gone and he invaded."
You've gotta be shitting me. The weapons inspecters were repeatedly thrown out of his country for absolutely no reason other than Saddam didn't want them there anymore. This breached the UN resolutions but hey, the corrupt UN was making money from Saddam now, what do they care about enforcing their resolutions? The U.S., however, did care and we did something about it. I think Bush's biggest mistake was saying we are going there mostly for WMD's. He should have said he was upholding the UN's honor and enforcing the resolutions Saddam so blatently ignored.
"The UN resolution did not promise war. It said something along the lines of 'if they don't comply there will be serious consequences'."
He got serious consequences didn't he? What else are we gonna do when he ignores all our resolutions? Tell him he's a bad man? Tell me, if after WW2 the Germans decided they were going to ignore what the other countried said they had to do and started rebuilding another nazi army, would you be against going to war with them again too?
"The US sees this resolution as saying there would be war if they didn't comply and all the countries opposed think that the resolution didn't say that."
Most the other countries opposed were either worried about their oil or had illegal oil for food program kickbacks going with Saddam.
"And this is very important since I see resemblance with WWII: Why do you believe its the US right to invade a country on their own. Do other countries also have this right? What if Spain, who also suffered a devestating terrorist attack, decided to invade Moroko where some of the terrorists came from?
Seriously, this scares me that a country can do this and get away with it. Last time this happened Saddam invaded Kuwait and he didn't get away with it but the US does."
If Moroko (is that how you spell it?) supported terrorists and was not willing to work with Spain then yes, i'd support Spains decision to invade their country and take care of the problem themselves. However, Spain is obviously full of cowards so that isn't going to be happening any time soon. They suffered a devestating terrorist attack and they wanted to bow down before the terrorists and ask forgiveness. BTW a little know fact, Spain was again attacked AFTER their government changed and bowed down before the terrorists. They're just lucky their government stopped the attack first. So again, how does anyone support the claim the terrorists just want to be left alone? Didn't work for Spain obviously.
rarnom Wrote:The only reason you dislike Cidien's comments is because you disagree with them //...........//If you have a problem with me calling Cidien a 'voice of reason', you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Am I the only one noticing the personal favoritism? You dubbed Cidien "voice of reason" after he called someone ?retard,? ?idiot,? and ?stupid,? which is otherwise known to you as a voice of reason. Here is the unbiased proof in its entirety:
http://import-anime.com/forums/showthrea...ge=2&pp=15
For someone who likes to label others as hypocrites, aren't you being a biggest hypocrite for lecturing me about the virtue of civility, when in fact, you praised another?s uncivil speech?
rarnom Wrote:When did I say I was not partisan?
fraud: noun
any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage
source: American Heritage dictionary
rarnom Wrote:I am "anyone but Kerry"
I have proved that you are a fraud.
First off, what you call 'personal favoritism' I just call 'being a friend'. Someone said Cidien was some kind of 'king of the forum' and that was a completely off base and uninformed comment and I was defending Cidien. Are you also going to give me grief because I have defended mr. Vicious from time to time as well? Don't hate me for backing my friends up...
Next, your utterly confusing bit about me and being a fraud.
If you had shown my entire quote it said that I was asking for someone to show when I said I was being 'non-partisian'. I followed that with a statement that said I have always said I am 'conservative'.
Here is my quote in its entirety
rarnom Wrote:When did I say I was not partisian? I have always said that I am a conservative.
Do you just misunderstand the term 'non-partisian'? I have NEVER claimed to be 'non-partisian'. A 'partisian' person by definition is someone who is a strong party supporter.
When I say 'anyone but Kerry' it doesn't mean I am a wildly open minded 'non-partisian', it just means that I am voting for Bush. If you really wanted to show me as being 'non-partisian' you should have dug up a quote when I was saying that Joe Lieberman was a good guy. Nonetheless, I am a republican and that is how I vote. I am a partisian person.
welcome back.
multipak Wrote:For someone who likes to label others as hypocrites, aren't you being a biggest hypocrite for lecturing me about the virtue of civility, when in fact, you praised another?s uncivil speech?
O.k., don't twist what happened. I didn't praise Cidiens
speech. I praised
Cidien based on what I had seen of him on the forum in other threads. I wouldn't just back someone up without having a good reason. I felt the remark was wildly out of line and I said something about it. I didn't say, "Hey good one Cidien!", I was defending
HIM, not his one post where he said what he said.
As far as me calling others (plural) hypocrites, the only person I can think of that I labeled as a 'hypocrite' was kakomu, and that was during that whole 'war/fighting/threat' conversation.
The other person who thought I was calling him a hypocrite was Zagatto, but I had included his post to show that someone else agreed with my thinking about war and personal violence. That was just a misunderstanding on his part.
Show me where I 'lectured' you about the 'virtue of civility'. I thought you started this up with me about taxes and how I was 'narrow minded'? And then you got mad because I am buddies with Cidien. Maybe I did 'lecture' you about civility, but I'd like to see it. And, NO, me asking people to try to 'keep things civil' doesn't count as a lecture.
btw, the term 'narrow minded' isn't too civil either...