 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
cause huh , those man portable sams where being sold to anyone who wanted them , .......
have a nice day |
Oh gosh, he could seel Ak-47's to anyone as well...surely those were banned by the cease-fire as well! He could even sell granades and RPG's surely those were banned! Heck, any weapons system could be sold...so surely Iraq was banned from having even kitchen knives!
This was pathetic. Want to prove this ludicrous claim? Go into the cease-fire agreement and find the clause were this is made.
quote:
SAMs are used against aircraft.
You know, the type aircraft used by Coalition troops patrolling the No Fly Zone? |
This is pathetic as well. Iraq was not allowed to challenge the flights in the NFZ (htough the legality of these zones was questionable): that is NOT the same as being banned the ability to defend themselves, specially since large sections of Iraq were NOT under NFZ (ncluding the area in which these wepaons were found). Iraq had SAM instalations around Baghdad and in the Southern NFZ: what do you think the S was bombing all the time before the war? and if you go back to Powells UN presentation, you will find him talking about flights being challenged, but no one in the admi. ever stated that Iraq having SAM's (which they demostrably did) was a violation of anything. Yet you, whom I would gather is not part of this admin., now make this claim?
You Sloww make a ludicrous claim, then challenge others to disprove it? That is Fez level logic as well. You make a far-fetched claim, you back it up if you want anyone but you to believe it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Oh gosh, he could seel Ak-47's to anyone as well...surely those were banned by the cease-fire as well! He could even sell granades and RPG's surely those were banned! Heck, any weapons system could be sold...so surely Iraq was banned from having even kitchen knives!
This was pathetic. Want to prove this ludicrous claim? Go into the cease-fire agreement and find the clause were this is made.
quote:
SAMs are used against aircraft.
You know, the type aircraft used by Coalition troops patrolling the No Fly Zone? |
This is pathetic as well. Iraq was not allowed to challenge the flights in the NFZ (htough the legality of these zones was questionable): that is NOT the same as being banned the ability to defend themselves, specially since large sections of Iraq were NOT under NFZ (ncluding the area in which these wepaons were found). Iraq had SAM instalations around Baghdad and in the Southern NFZ: what do you think the S was bombing all the time before the war? and if you go back to Powells UN presentation, you will find him talking about flights being challenged, but no one in the admi. ever stated that Iraq having SAM's (which they demostrably did) was a violation of anything. Yet you, whom I would gather is not part of this admin., now make this claim?
You Sloww make a ludicrous claim, then challenge others to disprove it? That is Fez level logic as well. You make a far-fetched claim, you back it up if you want anyone but you to believe it. |
hi ,
not to many ak's are used to shoot aircraft down , ....... 
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Easily the worst president ever. He's not even a conservative! That dickhead wouldn't cut spending. What good is cutting taxes without cutting spending? ****ing *******. |
quote:
but not shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles |
I know why they couldn't have them! So they couldn't defend themselves from any invasion!  Right?
quote:
Do it yourself, Lazyass. |
You're the one with the burden of proof 
quote:
You know, the type aircraft used by Coalition troops patrolling the No Fly Zone? |
...or the type aircraft any other nation would use to support an invasion of them, or, actually, the type aircraft WE USED TO BOMB THEM DURING THE WAR.....
You can call me an unpatriotic godless bastard, Sloww, but when you think about it from Iraq's point of view, not allowing SAMs is really a crooked deal. (If Iraq invaded US, we'd want SAMs wouldn't we?)
And why not a few SAMs if they were allowed ballistic missiles? Doesn't sound right to me 
quote:
If people like you and Slowwhand represent the future of the US (might makes right, any dissent is unpatriotic, other countries have to do what we say) then I would say that I am justifiably worried about a possible future US. |
You don't need to bother putting in the "future" part. We've already got a full count of "might makes right" + "dissent is unpatriotic" guys in office. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
GePap is a wanderer.
Wanders the world lost in his own concepts.
Thinking the Hussein's of the world play nice.
I've posted 1441 here 2 or 3 times, and all that is said is,
"Nana nana boo boo. I don't accept it."
Guess what? Hussein didn't and he got his family dusted.
Vanquished don't make the rules. |
For the sake of the n00b newly entering the Iraq fray, post it again with the parts proving your point bolded.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
GePap is a wanderer.
Wanders the world lost in his own concepts.
Thinking the Hussein's of the world play nice.
I've posted 1441 here 2 or 3 times, and all that is said is,
"Nana nana boo boo. I don't accept it."
Guess what? Hussein didn't and he got his family dusted.
Vanquished don't make the rules. |
Listen up you man-child:
If you want a reasoned debate on Iraq, bring it on, I will hapilly participate. But as of right now, all you do is post things you think back you up, or make ludicrous claims, and always, ALWAYS failt to give what actualy matters which is the reasoned analysis of it. And all you do is a great dis-serive to your cause, just like Fez. So if you want to further your cause, debate with logic, or sit back and let others do it.
There is ONE single pro-war poster here that has made a consistently reasoned arguement, and that is Lazarus, becuase he always simply justified the war on humanitarian reasons.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
But only a raving lunatic would say that he never ever had them. After all, what did UNSCOM find?
It is absolutely honest to say he never had nuclear weapons, because he didn't.
He may have had a few chemical shells and assorted odds and ends before the start of the war, but nothing substantial.
Anyway, we on the left don't have to prove the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction, the American occupying forces seem to have done a dandy job.
Face it fascists, we were right and you were wrong, period. |
so i'm a fascist now because i'm taking a moderate stance, as i've always done? so i'm a fascist, even though the quote in my signature would have me arrested in the night, beaten, tortured, and then perhaps quietly shot in a fascist regime?
some of the claims i've seen made by left-wingers is that saddamn ever had weapons of mass destruction, which is not borne out by simple facts such as the gassing of the northerners in the aftermath of the first gulf war.
you obviously haven't also read the first part of my post, where i ask how exactly the find of a bunch of small missiles incapable of holding any sort of nbc agent constitutes a weapon of mass destruction.
i still haven't found any evidence credible enough to actually believe that saddam was an imminent threat to our security. there have been no proven links to show that saddam was actually deeply involved with al qaida. this leads us, naturally, to the question of why this war was so critically needed--it wasn't about womd, because there are plenty of other nations we could clock; it wasn't about liberation, otherwise we'd be in zimbabwe and georgia right now; it wasn't about humanitarianism, else we'd've been in rwanda or east timor...
i can't buy any of the reasons that bush and co. sold to make us go to war. i can't buy any of the explanations given now explaining why we had to. and i can't buy any of this "proof" that we're being given to prove our rationale.
finally, if we did this to keep the un's honor, we certainly have a strange way of doing it. it's like calling a girl a whore, *****, and slut for being taken advantage of, slapping the ho around a few times and then dumping her, only to go out and beat the crap out of the guy who's been taking advantage of her. and now we want to go back to her and ask her to bail us out of jail?
the war was a ****ing mistake. but we're there now, and we have to stick it out. we can do some real good there, more than what we've done already, but it doesn't look like this administration has a ****ing clue on how to do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by el freako
True I can only form a judgment on the basis of your posts, here's hoping that they have been in jest.
What like genocide (the american indians), Land-grabbing Wars (Mexico) and helping out dictators (Pinochet, Shah, even Saddam)
Very true, but if the Iraq's of this world go wrong then it's a managable problem, if the US goes wrong then its a catastrophy |
You will have to decide if the important part of the US is the land-grabs (should include slavery if you are listing sins) or if it is the Constitution, etc. I personally think the world is a different, better place because of the US.
Small point: support for dictators was as part of a policy of resisting a different dictator. Same as with how we supported "Uncle Joe" in WW2. And the support for Pinochet is more of a popular myth in the Che-fringe than a reality. Support for Saddam was very limited and was mostly in the dimension of making sure that he didn't lose that war with Iran too bad. (We wanted them both to lose...there were even editorials to that effect.)
I understand the worry about the US going bad. Well, you can always have that worry. Even if we are completely good, just our sheer power ought to give you that worry. But you should be ok. Our democracy is a lot more stable than any country in Europe with the possible exception of the Swiss or UK.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
Sorry, but you had too many weapon's based claims. |
How does making weapons-based claims make your argument irrational? None of us knew for sure before the war whether Saddam had WMD or not. I preferred not to trust that he had destroyed them, given his past history and his shady behavior. Seems to make logical sense to me. |
Past history is no proof of future action, never has an never will be. Basing something on trust is essentially emotional, not trully logical.
I did believe Iraq had something banned when we were arguing about the war, becuase all the sources I believed (again, an emotional, not fully logical issue) said he must have had something, but the arguements for why he would use them in the future, given his situation I found lacking through and through.
Laz's arguement was based solely on what he had done and was doing (which was oppresing his people) at the time, never on what he might in some immaginary future do: in essence, his arguement was fully documented 100% of the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
Didnīt Hitler attack american Ships with his Submarines and drew the USA into war this way?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-09-2003 19:12
. There are lots of wimps here, but the group of people who support US and its actions are not so small either.
|