great bush website

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look! Another member of the He-Man Bush Haters Club, Alfalfa!

Make that a TRIPLE IDIOT!!!

This is tiring. And too easy. I have a legal document to plagerize. Later all your QUINTUPLE IDIOTS!!!!!!.

 

I am not getting into your fight, but I have a question. Is a sovereign nation not defined by its independence from any other nation? Not trying to be smart.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look! Another member of the He-Man Bush Haters Club, Alfalfa!

if you come back enough, we're going to learn some new multiples pretty soon.

 

BLA BLA BLA so much of your dribble.... your attention span did not last past the first line, way to go there...

 

In the pure sense of it yes your correct. There is the question of Soverenty and the then the Nation part...

 

"BLA BLA BLA"?? What a powerhouse!

But I do agree that what perturbio said about WMDs is silly. Potato, you need to lighten up a bit and not get so emotional all the time, IMHO.

Rodger

P.S. Potato Fan is a sesqi-octuple IDIOT!!!

 

OK. I'm sorry. I've been childish. I'll move on. Back to plagerizing.

 

Oh I use caps for emphasis, not to signify that I am upset,, I LAUGHED when I read his position, he is so far out of touch with reality he could be a pool boy for the Hollywood home of Dr. Dean…

potato fan? whats up with that?.....

 

I used to abreviate Yamaha Fan as Yam Fan. Yams. Potatos. Same food group. Very funny actually. No, really. Well, I laughed.

Back to plagerizing.

 

Unfortunately the UN never seemed to have any intention of enforcing resolutions, just passing new ones. Kind of like saying"This is the last time I'm going to tell you for the last time".
I believe the UN's part in the armistice was more as a broker than a party to it.
I will agree that the administration really muddied the waters as to their reasons for going into Iraq. However, if the claim that Iraq had WMD was a lie, it was one widely told and believed by a number of people, including the Clinton administration and a good number of politicians who are now hurling the accusation.

And please, Papa, call me In, Mr Corner was my father.

 

I never accused any of them of having any integrity. Widely told: certainly. Believed? In light of what we have seen, I am skeptical.

you are so predictable. I remember reading this sometime ago on another thread and it made me laugh. I was trying to see if I could make repeat it.

 

Kuwait was the 19th province of Iraq, carved out of Iraq by the Brits some time in the last 100 years. They (the Iraqis) had a claim to it.

 

Most Arab countries are rules by criminal mobs, so what. The iraquis (and other arabs) will deserve freedon when they earn it by overthrowing their tyrants. they will never appreciate what we hand to them.

I'd like to see some stats on the death rate. but trading the deaths of some for others isn't our call. If your refering to the Kurds, just imagine what the US goverment would do if Idaho decided to become an autonomous aryian region (oh, gee maybe we do have examples of this, ruby ridge, waco, the move group in philly). If Sadam decided to rule his nation with an iron fist thats his business (was tito's iron fist in yugoslavia justified given the years of civil war and ethnic cleansing that went on after he was gone?). If the US was so interested in reducing rapes, they would pull US troops out of Germany and Okinawa. no society is perfect.

lets see rights to WMD's? well SlowAndScared came up with an impressive list of treaties that Iraq signed, no mention if the US signed those same treaties. And I hardly believe violation of these treaties justifies violent overthrow of a goverment. I still maintain we have developed WMD's, continue to do research on them and stockpile them. other nations have the right to develop and stockpile the same. we can only slow the acquisition of these things, not prevent their acquisition. and in the meanwhile our arrogance and hypocrisy builds animosity and makes the future less secure, not more secure..

 

I am satisfied that you will NEVER get it as far as Iraq is concerned.

You are so blind, what has happened in Germany and Okinawa were the acts of individuals, it happens in this country also, your position on this attempts to equate the criminal acts of individuals and the state sponsored acts of the former Iraq government to terrorize its subjects. As a society they had tried to rise up against their corrupt government and contrary to the very treaties that you trot out signed by the former government of Iraq they used WMD on their own people. I guess in your mind it was in their country so it was ok..

With your “rights” mentality we should be returning weapons seized from criminals in this country when they are released from prison if they request them back, so long as they sign an agreement and promise not to use them to commit a crime again.

The US does have WMD, it was and has been a necessity to maintain the balance of power. The history of our use shows a clear understanding of the responsibility for having them and not using them.

 

That takes us back to a question I asked a long time ago. How does anyone prove intent before the fact? It's easy to say that the countries that decide who else has the right to nuclear weapons have been responsible since they haven't used them, but it's impossible to prove that North Korea will use it if they complete its development. What's wrong with nobody having them at all? Solves the problem.

mtberio - Do you believe there is a "statute of limitations" on a country's claim to land that used to belong to it? Is 100 years of sovereignty not long enough? What's a good number? I think Israel/Palestine is a good example of why that kind of reasoning is dangerous.

 

I wish it was that simple and could agree with no one having that sort of weapon.. but nuclear is not the only WMD. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle…

Rogue states do not have to use the weapon to present a danger to the world. They can use the privacy of their sovereignty to produce a weapon and provide it for $ to those that would use it not in defense nor against a military target, but against an innocent civilian population...

 

Again, you are wrong. Your time at U Mass was apparently ill-spent.

Kuwait has been a sovereign nation since 1756. Iraq has never had a legitimate claim to Kuwait.

 

But again, one cannot prove intent to sell those weapons to criminals willing to use them.

I am not advocating that people like Saddam Hussein should have nuclear (or chemical/biological) weapons. But the logic that justifies ownership by certain countries only is seriously flawed.

 

thank you for pointing out my error, the brits didn't carve kuwait out of iraq, they merely prevented it re-unification multiple times over the last 200 years.
oh yea and it was 1752, not 1756.

 

You're welcome. You can thank me again, because I'm about to point out some more of your errors. You should ask for a tuition refund from U Mass.

How can a country "re-unify" with another country it's never been part of? You're making no sense whatsoever.

Kuwait never derived from Iraq. Kuwait split off from Arabia. What we know as modern Iraq derived from Iran and the Ottoman Empire.

As to the British and "200 years," the British had a presence in the Gulf since the late 18th Century; however, Kuwait did not become a British Protectorate until 1899. This status ended in 1961. My calculations say that this period lasted 62 years. How is it that you come up with 200 years as the span between 1899 and 1961? They must teach a different form of math at U Mass.

Wrong again (and again, and again ). Prior to 1756 Kuwait was known as Qurain. The Utub tribe was dominant, and they were ruled by Eastern Arabia. In 1756 they chose their own ruler, Sabah ibn Jaber, and became a sovereign nation.

Care to try again? Or perhaps you'd rather pick another topic to be wrong about?