Piece of **** muslim convert kills young soldier and wounds another

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by saltyone, Jun 1, 2009.

Page 15 of 16
  1. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    37,793
    Likes Received:
    23,951
    Which is why it was so imperative that we keep Isreal from getting involved. Remember, they kept lobbing those faulty scuds at Tel Aviv trying to provoke them. Had they (Isreal) got involved the support of the other muslim nations would have eroded and perhaps turned into opposition instead of alli. I don't like it any more than you do Martin but the man with the six shooters is right on this one.:thumb:
     
    shane0911, Jun 12, 2009
    #141
    1 person likes this.
  2. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    again, we used the UN as much as we could. we would have done thething with or without the UN. we make the decisions. if you think the UN was calling the shots, then do you think it is acceptable that the us would go to war and let americans get killed under orders from the UN?

    UN resolution 687 is the cease fire and spells out the exact terms of the cease fire.

    UNSCR 1441 found iraq in breach of the cease fire. the cease fire then ended, war resumed. do your reasearch, amigo.

    study international law and you will learn what legitimacy means in real terms. the UN has almost none.

    obviously i never said the US was committed to any UN anything. feel free to try to quote me on that one. i have been saying all along that the US operates on its own, getting UN agreement if possible, but ignoring it otherwise. the US agreed to the cease fire commitments with iraq. iraq violated them so the US had to resume the war. why bother even drafting a cease fire agreement otherwise?
     
    martin, Jun 12, 2009
    #142
  3. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    no because he would have ignored the UN if they hadnt agreed. that is the genius of bush, he cares more about our actual interests than pointless politics and nonsense.
     
    martin, Jun 12, 2009
    #143
  4. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    18,027
    on a side note, i saw where he did a little skydiving today, i bet they could have made alot of money if they raffled off the chance to push that douchebag out of an airplane.
     
    LaSalleAve, Jun 12, 2009
    #144
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Stop mischaracterizing my statements! It's childish and foolish since I'm here to refute them. I never said that the UN was "calling the shots", you said that. I said that Bush sought and got UN approval for making war under UN auspices, gaining legitimacy and many allies. The US called the war strategy, but it was done under a UN Resolution for the liberation of Kuwait..

    Exactly. If you bother to read it you will find that it has no conditions for a return to war it it is breached. Go ahead, cite me the part of the Resolution that says this. You can't do it.

    I've done the research. I posted the link to the Resolution 687 and pointed out that it does not contain the conditions that you claim. You are making it all up and refusing to listen to clear evidence to the contrary.

    And, in martin tradition, you keep repeating the same asked and refuted statements over and over like it somehow makes it all true.

    This ain't about UN legitimacy and international law. It's about how totally erroneous was your statement that were were "committed" to invade Iraq becasue of Resolution 687, which makes no such commitment upon us.

    First you quoted Dubya, who said "And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say "serious consequences," for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences."

    And you backed it up by saying, "the commitments must have meaning." - martin

    "presumably you think we should not stand behind our commitments. -- martin"

    "ignoring the conditions of a cease-fire is not a "laughable snub". it means fire is no longer ceased and war resumes." -- martin

    "UN resolution 687 is the cease fire and spells out the exact terms of the cease fire. -- martin"

    Now, I don't want to mischaracterize you. But you clearly have said that "ignoring" UN Resolution 687, to which we are "committed", means that "war resumes".

    Already asked and answered! Are you thick or something?

    Look, it was not some temporary "cease fire" during a war. The war was won and it was over. President Bush declared a cease fire after 100 hours on February 28, 1991. THAT was the kind of cease fire of which you speak. Troops were still in the field ready to fight. The Iraqi's surrendered to Schwartzkopf at Safwan airfield on March 3 and the fighting was over.

    UN Resolution 687 of April 8 formally affirmed the restoration of the Kuwait government, recognized the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait, provides for UN monitors, establishes a demilitarized zone, decides that Iraq shall accept the destruction of its WMDs, prohibits sale of armaments to Iraq and makes other requirements.

    It does not provide for the resumption of the liberation of Kuwait which, of course, was over. The only response referred to is an admonition that if Iraq were to use WMD's against anybody that "grave consequences" would follow. Well, The WMD's were destroyed by UNSCOM and Saddam never used them. By 2003 all the armies had been gone for 12 years . . . there was no war to resume.
     
    red55, Jun 12, 2009
    #145
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Wild speculation is fun for you, maybe. But history is history.
     
    red55, Jun 12, 2009
    #146
  7. gumborue

    gumborue Throwin Ched

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    577
    i think all this depends on the definition of brainwashing. i equate the accountability of a brainwashed person to that of an idiot. i do not think an idiot should be sentenced to death for killing someone, but the country has a duty to take reasonable, humane measures to keep that idiot from doing it again.

    sorry but i dont think his crime is any worse because he killed military. as i was attempting to argue before, his crime could be minimized because he killed military.
     
    gumborue, Jun 12, 2009
    #147
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    the whole point of the cease fire agreement is to "cease the fire". that is why they call it that. they would call it a "we are not starting a war with you ever again with you guys no matter how you ignore our demands and kill political prisoners and support terrorism and do whatever you want for 12 years. also we are cowardly cunts that let you get away with anything" agreement if that is what it was.


    we are committed because we ourselves made the agreement with iraq. it is not relevant that the folks who published it work at the UN.

    keep quoting me if you want to keep making sense. good work.



    of course it was. there was plenty of speculation that we might take iraq back then, in fact we made some mistakes and the kurds thought we would, and started to help and fight. but the cease fire was held and the war stopped, albeit temporarily.

    it was paused until 12 years of the iraqis ignoring the agreements that ended it finally got on our nerves too much, and we resumed, as we should have. and the cease fire wasnt just about wmd. for saddam to obey the terms of it, he would have had to completely change his ways. stop killing his enemies, stop oppressing/killing minorities, lots of things. he could have kept his country if he had done those things. he didnt.
     
    martin, Jun 12, 2009
    #148
  9. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17,958
    Likes Received:
    8,799
    Why not?
     
    lsu-i-like, Jun 14, 2009
    #149
  10. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    This attitude probably takes about 75% of the murderers out there off the hook. :huh:


    Replace temporary insanity, and you at least (IMO) have an argument. But intelligence has nothing to do with accountability for right and wrong. Lots of morons go to work every day, come home, raise their kids, and successfully never kill anyone.

    Start enforcing the death penalty with reasonable appeals rules and watch the murder rate plummet.
     
    Bandit88, Jun 14, 2009
    #150
Page 15 of 16

Share This Page