Another Iraq Discussion with Crack and BS

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-03-08 03:45pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Whilst in Beijing, I thought I heard on CNN that the UN recently passed a resolution authorizing the US invasion. Was I hallucinating, or was this for real?

The UN never passed a resolution specifically saying that, they have however passed several resolutions which basically give the US and Collation friends control of the country. So while the invasions legality can be argued over, the occupation is very legal. Course, why anyone gives a fuck about what the UN says I don't know.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-03-08 04:13pm

What I really like about Skimmer's posts is the way he distills everything down to obvious common sense.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-08 05:34pm

Shitbrick wrote:
(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
The United States is guilty of crimes against peace, the section I highlighted in yellow. So how should I describe George Bush? As a war criminal or a peace criminal? Didn't the United States break section (a) by waging war? Thus, "war criminal" is accurate. Bitch, you're too easy.

Of course, and Saddam has been violating your precious fucking international law for years now with well-documented crimes against humanity, but you were completely opposed to an invasion that would have punished him for that. But when it comes to punishing the the United States on a charge that is much more ambiguous than the legalistic case against Saddam, you're all for it. You sound like a two-track broken record that somebody took a shit on.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-03-08 05:40pm

Joe wrote:
Shitbrick wrote:
(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
The United States is guilty of crimes against peace, the section I highlighted in yellow. So how should I describe George Bush? As a war criminal or a peace criminal? Didn't the United States break section (a) by waging war? Thus, "war criminal" is accurate. Bitch, you're too easy.
Of course, and Saddam has been violating your precious fucking international law for years now with well-documented crimes against humanity, but you were completely opposed to an invasion that would have punished him for that. But when it comes to punishing the the United States on a charge that is much more ambiguous than the legalistic case against Saddam, you're all for it. You sound like a two-track broken record that somebody took a shit on.

Well, back when he did openly do his crimes against humanity (like gassing the Kurds), the USA and the rest of the western community, weren't particularly interested in dealing with Saddam.
But then again, he was useful in those times...

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-03-08 05:42pm

Actually, if memory serves most of the Kurd-gassing took place immediately after Desert Storm.

What you're thinking of is the Iranian-gassing.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-03-08 06:58pm

Howedar wrote:Actually, if memory serves most of the Kurd-gassing took place immediately after Desert Storm.

What you're thinking of is the Iranian-gassing.

Actually, he gassed Kurds, in Halabjah on March 16th, 1988. Which was before the Desert Storm, and during the Iran_Iraw war.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-09 03:20am

Howedar wrote:Actually, if memory serves most of the Kurd-gassing took place immediately after Desert Storm.

What you're thinking of is the Iranian-gassing.

\

I don't think there was any post-Desert Storm gassing.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-09 05:29am

Joe wrote:Of course, and Saddam has been violating your precious fucking international law

You're getting angry. Those pesky international laws! Fuck em, eh!

for years now with well-documented crimes against humanity, but you were completely opposed to an invasion that would have punished him for that.

Wow, you're stupid. When did I say Saddam is anything but an asshole? That's right, never. When did I say that Saddam didn't deserve to be punished? Right again, never. What I HAVE said is that the United States invaded Iraq on the back of lies and mis-information. Normal people see something wrong with that. War should be the absolute LAST solution to solving a problem. The US told us it was time to use war. But used lies and exaggerations to convince us of that time. Normal people see something wrong with that. But you don't. Ergo, you're not normal. You're stupid. You're just a little kid, too weak to form an opinion which doesn't coincide with the United States government.

But when it comes to punishing the the United States on a charge that is much more ambiguous than the legalistic case against Saddam, you're all for it.

I would have supported efforts to bring Saddam in front of the International Courts, because like you said, he is a criminal.

You sound like a two-track broken record that somebody took a shit on.

Which is much better then what you are, a one track record with RPM set to "moron".

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-09 02:02pm

You're getting angry. Those pesky international laws! Fuck em, eh!

Essentially, yes, the uselessness of international law has been proven many times. It can't be enforced, and more importantly it won't be enforced.

Wow, you're stupid. When did I say Saddam is anything but an asshole? That's right, never. When did I say that Saddam didn't deserve to be punished? Right again, never. What I HAVE said is that the United States invaded Iraq on the back of lies and mis-information. Normal people see something wrong with that. War should be the absolute LAST solution to solving a problem.

And how without war, shitbrick? Another UN resolution, maybe? One thing that doesn't bother despotic Middle Eastern leaders is empty threats.

The US told us it was time to use war. But used lies and exaggerations to convince us of that time. Normal people see something wrong with that. But you don't. Ergo, you're not normal. You're stupid. You're just a little kid, too weak to form an opinion which doesn't coincide with the United States government.

Well, I don't feel lied to, and David Kay's testimony in front of Congress and the Senate vindicates that. The CIA also says that they were under no pressure from the White House.

I would have supported efforts to bring Saddam in front of the International Courts, because like you said, he is a criminal.

Care to give an explanation of how you do that without war, shitbrick?

Which is much better then what you are, a one track record with RPM set to "moron".

Revolutions per minute set to moron? How does that work, fuckface?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-09 02:21pm

Joe wrote:
You're getting angry. Those pesky international laws! Fuck em, eh!
Essentially, yes, the uselessness of international law has been proven many times. It can't be enforced, and more importantly it won't be enforced.

Nice.

Wow, you're stupid. When did I say Saddam is anything but an asshole? That's right, never. When did I say that Saddam didn't deserve to be punished? Right again, never. What I HAVE said is that the United States invaded Iraq on the back of lies and mis-information. Normal people see something wrong with that. War should be the absolute LAST solution to solving a problem.
And how without war, shitbrick? Another UN resolution, maybe? One thing that doesn't bother despotic Middle Eastern leaders is empty threats.

UN inspections were working, there wasn't the need to go to war. You're inferring the problem wasn't getting solved successfully; it clearly was.

The US told us it was time to use war. But used lies and exaggerations to convince us of that time. Normal people see something wrong with that. But you don't. Ergo, you're not normal. You're stupid. You're just a little kid, too weak to form an opinion which doesn't coincide with the United States government.
Well, I don't feel lied to,

Wait a minute while I find that shocked emoticon. Ok:

and David Kay's testimony in front of Congress and the Senate vindicates that. The CIA also says that they were under no pressure from the White House.

How many times are you going to ignore the forged Niger documents?

I would have supported efforts to bring Saddam in front of the International Courts, because like you said, he is a criminal.
Care to give an explanation of how you do that without war, shitbrick?

Was that the reason for the war, imbecile? Getting Saddam to the Hague? Or removing the threat of WMD's?

Which is much better then what you are, a one track record with RPM set to "moron".
Revolutions per minute set to moron? How does that work, fuckface?

LPD's have variable speed settings. Think of yourself as the slowest speed. "Moron" speed.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-03-09 02:57pm

Village Troll wrote

Joe wrote:
Quote:
You're getting angry. Those pesky international laws! Fuck em, eh!

Essentially, yes, the uselessness of international law has been proven many times. It can't be enforced, and more importantly it won't be enforced.

Nice.

So you agree that Internation law is fucking usless, unless force is used??

When did I say that Saddam didn't deserve to be punished

See Above ^

How many times are you going to ignore the forged Niger documents?

We covered that in the Kerry Thread.. Either you believe a Political Hack or the British Gov

would have supported efforts to bring Saddam in front of the International Courts, because like you said, he is a criminal.

Again.... HOw do you propose to do that.????/ again just random Trolling on your part

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-09 03:29pm

UN inspections were working, there wasn't the need to go to war. You're inferring the problem wasn't getting solved successfully; it clearly was.

So you're saying UN inspections would have brought Saddam before the Hague?

How many times are you going to ignore the forged Niger documents?

Oh, give me a fucking break. For all the fucking hootenanny about the yellowcake business you would have think Bush had claimed to have personally witnessed Saddam with a brick of yellowcake. You'd think he went to Europe and stampeded all over the place shouting about how the case for war depended entirely on this detail. You'd think that every American's support for the war sank or swam based on the validity of the yellowcake claim. Hell, I hadn't even heard about the whole yellowcake business until July, and most people had to be reminded of what the fuck all the fuss was about when the story finally broke.

I am well aware of the forged documents, but all Bush did was make a claim that the British government is standing by to this day. And the British government was completely vindicated by the Hutton Report, so yes, I believe them.

Was that the reason for the war, imbecile? Getting Saddam to the Hague? Or removing the threat of WMD's?

Who gives a fuck about the reason? If the UN had supported the war he could have been brought in front of the Hague, regardless of the reason those crazy Yanks wanted to go to war. But the UN wanted no part of it.

LPD's have variable speed settings. Think of yourself as the slowest speed. "Moron" speed.

Mmm, no, I don't think the analogy pans out. Try again, tiger.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-03-09 03:44pm

Ski, say what you will about his tone, but the guy is not trolling

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-03-09 03:53pm

Hamel..... wrote

Ski, say what you will about his tone, but the guy is not trolling

So this is Style insted of Trolling.... ?? Kinda rides the fence

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-03-09 03:57pm

theski wrote:Hamel..... wrote
Ski, say what you will about his tone, but the guy is not trolling
So this is Style insted of Trolling.... ?? Kinda rides the fence

It's called kicking it with your political homies

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-09 09:34pm

Joe wrote:
Oh, give me a fucking break. For all the fucking hootenanny about the yellowcake business you would have think Bush had claimed to have personally witnessed Saddam with a brick of yellowcake. You'd think he went to Europe and stampeded all over the place shouting about how the case for war depended entirely on this detail. You'd think that every American's support for the war sank or swam based on the validity of the yellowcake claim. Hell, I hadn't even heard about the whole yellowcake business until July, and most people had to be reminded of what the fuck all the fuss was about when the story finally broke.

Revisionist history alert- your personal ignorance of its importance matter is not a valid argument: it was in the Oct 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. It was in the state of the union speech. Various administration figures made repeated claims about Iraq's non-existent nuclear program (eg. Cheney's most overblown claims). That's all that's required for it to be a major part of the rationale for war- 'stampeding around Europe' is hardly relevant, the Europeans do have TV you know. And why you're referring to the "other" parts of the ridiculously overblown case for war, I don't know- it makes it seem like you thought they were true too.

I am well aware of the forged documents, but all Bush did was make a claim that the British government is standing by to this day. And the British government was completely vindicated by the Hutton Report, so yes, I believe them.

You must not have read the Hutton report (not to mention the widespread view that it was nothing but a whitewash)- it has nothing to say in support of your belief on the Niger claim, and your belief of the British as having "other" sources to support their *obvious* load of bullshit (have you missed the reams upon reams of post war sources confirming what the IAEA, Joseph Wilson etc told us???) was quite well exposed by BoredShirtless comments in another thread as rather silly (ie. the British passing off a plagiarized term paper as the latest intelligence, but witholding the 'real' evidence of their since proven to be BS ...).