But here's the thing. The UN didn't even agree with us invading Iraq to begin with, nor did its most recent resolution permit the use of force. So you're not even agreeing with them in this case. As someone who claims infallibility in this sort of discourse, I would expect you to not have assumed anything about my feelings regarding the UN, as they have yet to be introduced into this conversation. Making stuff up, martin? One more time, it's not simply about 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing' with them. Just about every person in the world is going to have agreements and disagreements with various governing bodies. Choosing to support the enforcement of some rules and not others, within a system that you label as wholly illegitimate, is simply run-of-the-mill, self-serving hypocrisy.
Quote by Chaos:The resolutions Israel violated were either about its annexation of East Jerusalem or settlements in the territories. Israel also ignored UN Security Council resolutions that called for Israel to cease using harsh measures against the Palestinian population and to cease expelling Palestinians. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hmmm, Let's talk about this shall we? Well, Gee, what is Isreal suppose to do to protect their country and people against the suicide bombers and the Palestinian terrorists? You say it is terrible logic to go one way or the other well what about the UN and how it overlooks certain countries and their dealings, then you have the UN itself and its scandals. If you go after Isreal shouldn't you also go after the Palestinians and their suicide bombers, there support for terrorism. How convenient it is for the anti-Isreal people to overlook this, aren't you choosing sides just like I was? You keep saying how we can't use the UN for justifications because of our beliefs in it, well, let me throw one back at you. I still would like to know if you honestly support the UN or not but here goes. I can use the UN for justification just because there are people that believe in it and support it, the same people who overlook the UN and there scandals, etc. Its whatever convenient for either side you see, there is no difference in what I do. The UN was also more credible before the war, they weren't really given a black eye until after the war when we found out the truth. We find out a little more every day don't we? Do you honestly think the UN would've ever agreed with us going into Iraq when they were knee deep in Saddam's pocket? What kind of logic is this? Isn't everyone here glad we went into Iraq to at least find out the truth about the UN, France and other countries, we would've never known otherwise.
Who's going after Israel? Did I ever say that I think we should invade them? Nope. Just an example. Turkey is second behind them in violations since 1968. Again, no. I am not anti-Israel. You assumed that I was because I used them as an example of a country that has continually defied the UN with no reprimand. As I pointed out to martin, the UN did not back the US invasion. They had a resolution drafted after Desert Storm that kept Saddam on a short rope, threatening the use of force in the instance on non-compliance. When that compliance was deemed to have been met, Res. 687 was drafted, and only held economic sanctions as a consequence. Gee, funny how that worked out, isn't it? Odd how many entities have 'lost credibility' under this administration. Probably not. But I'm not trying to defend our need for their approval to invade Iraq. I have not done that at any point in this thread.
How about Palestine, haven't they gone after Isreal with their suicide bombers and no one has really cared or tried and stop it for years. I thought that was one reason why the Israelis do what they do, mow down villages and harrassed Arafat at his compound, built a fence between Isreal and Palestine. This is one reason why terrorists like Al Quada do what they do, another reason why we are dealing with events like 9-11 and terrorism. Ok, I wish I really knew where you were coming from because you have always been all over the map, we must be playing a game like Devils advocate since I don't know where you stand on the issues. Are you trying to stick up for the UN by your statement about the loss of credibility during this administration? What does this mean? Does this give the UN credibility back or why not attack America or George Bush since you can't defend the UN? I'll say this one more time... Countries and organizations "always" pick and choose countries to "pick on" or go after, mainly bully countries run by mad men who kill their people and invade neighbors. Isreal hasn't used chemical weapons on its people or on its neighbors. Isreal hasn't committed acts of aggression on other nations. You state Isreal was an example, well, not a very good one if you ask me. You may not be anti-Isreal but I don't think you are pro-Isreal either because you didn't bring up the other side, either that or you aren't very informed. Ok, Are you pro abortion, pro gun control. Let's quit playing games and let everyone know where we stand. I hate it when certain people on here try to be neutral when in fact they are wasting your time playing mind games and, or they aren't what they appear to be. :dis:
well, as a hypocrite, i only favor the UN when they agree with me. one time i tried reversing my stance if the UN agreed with me, but i figured it would be easier to be a hypocrite. haha, sorry, do you differ from the party of principle on this issue? did i make an ass out of you and me, or did i assume correctly that you agree with the libertarian stance on this one. do you in fact agree with your party as i assumed? i favor enforcement of the terms saddam agreed to, even if the UN does not. if the UN is on board and makes me a hypocrite by agreeing with me, i guess i am a hypocrite. a run-of-the-mill one. and also self-serving. i love serving myself.
Originally Posted by Contained Chaos It's not simply 'don't agree with the UN'. It's about you only agreeing with them when it's convenient for you, while simultaneously calling for the total destruction of the entire institution. Your mouth has two sides and you've successfully managed to speak out of both at once. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me try this one, Hmmm By this statement I would say that this would apply to everyone including Chaos even though he tries to be "neutral". This is stupid, really, we are all human and have our prejudices. What a waste of time. Should we talk about the UN and both sides of their mouths. Hypocrites? Doesn't fit your agenda Chaos? ---------------------------------------------------------------------Originally Posted by Contained Chaos But here's the thing. The UN didn't even agree with us invading Iraq to begin with, nor did its most recent resolution permit the use of force. So you're not even agreeing with them in this case. --------------------------------------------------------------- then Originally Posted by Contained Chaos Probably not. But I'm not trying to defend our need for their approval to invade Iraq. I have not done that at any point in this thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I asked you if the UN would ever justify going into Iraq and then you answer this way? Just what are you trying to prove by these statements?
Again, when my stance on the UN becomes an issue, then I will address it. At the moment, I'm not in the least bit interested in discussing whether or not the UN is 'credible'. I'm painting you into a corner by virtue of your own hypocritical stance on the institution. It all ties back into your feeble justification for war. So quit trying to change the subject. The rest of the nonsense in that post is another one of your typical attempts to flee an argument by spouting off absurd, pseudo-reinforcing jargon.
One last time, my agenda isn't the one on trial here. I am pointing out that some of you swear by UN policy only when it fits your agenda. Quit assuming that I'm talking about something else and pay attention, please. Yes. I said probably not. I also reiterated that such an assertion is completely immaterial to the argument at hand.
Of course. We neither won nor lost those occupations, nor have we brought our troops home from either place. Those populations cooperated with us in rebuilding their country, it worked, and they became allies. This ain't Little League, Sourdough. International geopolitics are far more complex than that. I don't have to have a military background to have an informed opinion. This is a forum for discussion, remember? If you think I made an error, then call me on it. But trying to discredit me when I'm stating facts is kind of lame. Especially when you are no particular expert yourself. And yes, almost all of the retired military experts have stated that it is impossible to lock down Iraq with 120,000 troops. And events have proven that we cannot even seal the borders or protect our own supply lines from attack. Our excellent troops are overstretched. My opinion, stated often, has always been that we go in with everthing we've got and fight our kind of war . . . or we don't go in at all. These half-measures are disasterous. There are a few good men in Iraq, Sourdough. Damn good men. But way too few. And even they don't love us. They are trying to make the best of a bad situation and get some Iraqi control of the place. Why? Because they want us to go home. Our friends want us to go home, in time. Our enemies want us to go home right now. We just want to go home with something to show for the whole episode. There is universal agreement on one thing--the Americans need to go home. If we are holding out for democracy, we will never get out of Iraq. Our best hope is to leave a secular strongman in place, not an islamic extremist.
Chaos, Our conversation is over, you continuously beat around the bush. You have no stance on any subject and you won't answer any questions. I guess you are just the middle guy who has nothing to do but correct others while no one can correct you because no one knows anything about you.
