A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Simulators
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

An example for you all to look up to



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old April 4th 05, 01:12 AM
alex martini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well not that I have any intention of continuing this but one little point;
the ceasefire agreement was with the UN - not the US. The UN did NOT
sanction war, you did. Therefore your war is illegal. What is more, the
ceasfire terms were that Iraq disarmed; at the UN, Iraq said they had
disarmed and the UN weapons inspectors concurred (as opposed to conquered,
which the US did). Therefore the war was illegal; the only people saying
Iraq had WMD was the White House - they even said, in what will go down in
history as the momentous lie since Hitler's pledge in Munich - to have
'evidence' of WMD in Iraq. Iraq was disarmed; there were no WMD. The US
lied. And then invaded, in stark violation of the UN charter and therefore
in breach of international law and, therefore, this war was, is and ever
shall remain Illegal.
"Randy Magruder" > wrote in message
...
> John Wallace wrote:
>
>> Randy Magruder wrote:
>>
>> > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you
>> > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the
>> > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD.

>>
>> The legal right to go to war is nothing to do with Bush's SOU
>> address. It is solely to do with the UN resolutions, and whether or
>> not Iraq possessed WMD. It doesn't matter if Bush is ****ed off that
>> Saddam drives a Japanese car, or prefers Pepsi over Coke, no WMD =
>> illegal war.
>>
>> Bush can practice all the revisionist history he wants and cite a
>> bajillion other reasons - that doesn't give them meaning.

>
> John, while you're looking up my private e-mail address to continue
> this, you might also read the definition of "Ceasefire agreement".
>
> Later. I won't answer any more of your posts HERE
>
> Randy



Ads
  #102  
Old April 5th 05, 07:07 AM
Byron Forbes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Speaking of U.S. inventions, what do you think the U.N. is - any idiot
can see the U.N. is simply something for the U.S. to divert attention away
from itself with.

Like dago democracy seeks to con the people into thinking they get a say
in things down at the ballot box, the U.N. creates the illusion that a body
other than the U.S. is running the show here on earth - big jokes these.

Mostly, the U.N. is a U.S. puppet but the U.S. has demonstrated that
their approval is only nice, not neccessary. It's pointless to refer to
people as criminals when you simply don't have the power to arrest them.


"alex martini" > wrote in message
...
> Well not that I have any intention of continuing this but one little
> point; the ceasefire agreement was with the UN - not the US. The UN did
> NOT sanction war, you did. Therefore your war is illegal. What is more,
> the ceasfire terms were that Iraq disarmed; at the UN, Iraq said they had
> disarmed and the UN weapons inspectors concurred (as opposed to conquered,
> which the US did). Therefore the war was illegal; the only people saying
> Iraq had WMD was the White House - they even said, in what will go down in
> history as the momentous lie since Hitler's pledge in Munich - to have
> 'evidence' of WMD in Iraq. Iraq was disarmed; there were no WMD. The US
> lied. And then invaded, in stark violation of the UN charter and therefore
> in breach of international law and, therefore, this war was, is and ever
> shall remain Illegal.
> "Randy Magruder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Wallace wrote:
>>
>>> Randy Magruder wrote:
>>>
>>> > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you
>>> > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the
>>> > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD.
>>>
>>> The legal right to go to war is nothing to do with Bush's SOU
>>> address. It is solely to do with the UN resolutions, and whether or
>>> not Iraq possessed WMD. It doesn't matter if Bush is ****ed off that
>>> Saddam drives a Japanese car, or prefers Pepsi over Coke, no WMD =
>>> illegal war.
>>>
>>> Bush can practice all the revisionist history he wants and cite a
>>> bajillion other reasons - that doesn't give them meaning.

>>
>> John, while you're looking up my private e-mail address to continue
>> this, you might also read the definition of "Ceasefire agreement".
>>
>> Later. I won't answer any more of your posts HERE
>>
>> Randy

>
>



  #103  
Old April 6th 05, 12:44 PM
catisfit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you get all your news from the same place, then you're buying in to
their reporting slant. Every news agency has it's own bias, if you
want to pick the fact from the spin you have to read a few different
reports of the same story from different sources. By that I mean, from
around the world, not just Fox and CBS. It's interesting that no
decent info on the N. Korea nuke situation was from news agencies in
the US or UK. The day N. Korea announced they had nukes, the BBC
didn't even mention it on their 30 minute news program...

If you want a perfect example of sensationalist, completely false
reporting from the BBC, check out their top story on Condoleezza Rice
at the 9/11 inquiry. They painted her up to be satan's first born,
completely ignoring anything resembling 'fact'.

  #104  
Old April 9th 05, 01:22 AM
JTS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Still smarting from the election, eh?

"alex martini" > wrote in message
news
> Uh, me no - I was saying that the idea that Iraq was a threat to the US -
> and therefore a legitimate target for invasion - was spurious at the time
> and has been proven to be a lie with hindsight and anyone who thinks Iraq
> was in any way, shape or form a legitimate target for invasion is either
> (a) deluded (b) Bush (c) ignorant or (d) all of the above.
> "MartyU" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Are you really comparing the support for allies in the grip of a growing
>> Nazi empire with the essentially unilateral, preemptive attack for bogus
>> reasons of a country that was no threat to US national security?
>>
>> Geez...
>>
>> Marty
>>
>> alex martini wrote:
>>> A normal person understands that war is a last resort, and one that is
>>> taken because one's nation is in danger. A normal person understands
>>> that democracy is not implemented at the point of a depleted uraniumed
>>> bomb. Were it only so, we'd all be nazis by now.
>>>
>>> "Mitch_A" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>
>>>>Youre mis-interpreting aggression. If anything like me it's not
>>>>aggression it's AMAZEMENT that an otherwise seemingly normal person can
>>>>think in the terms youve described yourself in the past few posts.
>>>>
>>>>The flight sim ng is known for its left wing lunatics if youre looking
>>>>for a fight Alex
>>>>
>>>>Mitch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"alex martini" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>
>>>>>Yes aggression is your nature I've noticed ;-)
>>>>>"rmagruder" > wrote in message
glegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>So, how you liking the sims these days?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(Sorry, but I'm AGGRESSIVELY changing the subject back to, ya know,
>>>>>>REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>

>



  #105  
Old April 9th 05, 08:44 PM
John Wallace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Randy Magruder wrote:

> John Wallace wrote:
>
>
>>Randy Magruder wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry dude, as of yesterday, I'm done with this useless discussion.
>>>I'm staying on sims from today on.

>>
>>Or, "crap, I have no argument to that so I'll sprint for the moral
>>high ground"

>
>
> I'll be happy to take this conversation with you to private e-mail or
> anywhere else. Don't assume that just because I choose to try to get
> back to talking racing sims here (I know, the horror!). You know my
> e-mail address. If you actually want to debate this you know where to
> reach me.


I apologise if I misjudged your bowing out. E-mail would be good, but
probably not on this topic. Neither of us are going to convert the
other, and I don't think it's the intention.
  #106  
Old April 9th 05, 08:48 PM
John Wallace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Henrie wrote:

>> no WMD = illegal war.
>>

>
>
> Rather, no WMD = umpopular war. The violation of the Cease Fire
> agreements signed after the first Gulf war were all the justification the
> USA needed to launch an attack.


If that's the case, why is the UK being so coy about the legaility of
our involvement? Our top legal advisor was told what to say by the
government, and has been gagged from talking about it.

So we, the public from whom some were selected to go and die, are not
allowed to know if the deaths were in a legal cause.

The case for war may be proven as interpreted in a John Wayne movie, but
under international law it is not proven.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.