15
   

As A Wise Man, Umm, Guy, Once Said

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 08:36 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

First of all, stop talking about chemical weapons. I am talking about weapons of mass destruction
A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere.

The USA Forces define WMD:
Quote:
weapons of mass destruction

(DOD) Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD. See also special operations.
Source: JP 3-40
Source: DOD Dictionary of Military Terms

But you know that, since you quoted H. Clinton about it.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 09:01 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter, you know what's really sad, so much information can be obtained via the Internet, foreign newspapers and those things most of us remember as history books. It seems young Brandon is more influenced by sci-fi films and conspiracy theory than actual reality.

Brandon, if you want to be helpful, see if you can find out when Russia decided to resume the LRA routes, and where they patrol. I'll give you a hint, it was actually printed in an American Newspaper.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 09:51 am
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

When it became obvious that the administration lost the focus, we were on our own.


We were on our own?

Quote:
The original (coalition) included 46 members. In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 countries on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.


That France was not willing to participate means nothing in terms of the credibility of assertions made about Iraq's WMDs. They might have refused to do so even if they were 100% certain Saddam had WMDs.

You should ask yourself why the French:

1) Are going ahead with selling Putin naval warships
2) When Karzai asked NATO for troops to protect 2004 Election workers (two has already been killed by the Taliban) France vetoed the US and UK backed response and Jacques Chirac commented that the force should not be used "in any old way,"
3) They continued to sell Saddam weapons after the UN embargo of Iraq was put in place
4)Why they opposed NATO's deployment of defense missiles to protect Turkey from Iraqi attacks
5) Why they refused to support Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam
6) Why they opposed the 2005 effort to have Hezbollah designated a terrorist group by the EU. Jacques explained that the "timing wasn't right."
7) Why the term "French Obstructionism" is so often employed by historians and observers when discussing French foreign policy
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 09:55 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
The vast majority of British people opposed the invasion. It was profoundly undemocratic to send our troops out there, don't say Britain when you mean Blair.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 10:28 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
While I think that the first six questions are easily to be answered by anyone, I do have some problems with this one:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Why the term "French Obstructionism" is so often employed by historians ...


Could you name some of those historians?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 10:42 am
@izzythepush,
Well, I don't see where I said or even implied that a majority of British people supported sending troops to Iraq.

The UK (Britain) sent troops to fight in Iraq. This is accurate and undeniable. I meant Britain, not Blair. You will have to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe parliament passed a motion authorizing British involvement in the war. Blair, as Prime Minister, had the power, without the approval of Parliament, to declare war by virtue of the Royal Prerogative. Whether or not he had the power to commit British troops to a military engagement without a formal declaration of war is something I will rely on you to tell me. In any case, it’s moot since he did receive the approval of Parliament. Whether or not his decisions were supported by the majority of the British people, if he acted within the legal authority of his office, he was acting on behalf of the nation. For the purposes of describing which nations were part of the coalition, the use of the UK or Britain is accurate and appropriate.

If you wish to point out that a majority of Brits opposed this action, please do, but I see no reason to alter a perfectly acceptable choice of terms to accommodate your political view. I trust though that in the future you will determine whether or not an American president has the support of a majority of Americans before you use the term “America” or “The United States” in addressing an action or position taken by our nation.


revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 10:43 am
@McGentrix,
I suppose since Bush was president when he started the war for no reason, he is going to be forever blamed for it.

If the ACA (obamacare) does not do well, Obama will forever be blamed for that as well, long after he is gone from presidency.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 10:43 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Google the term Walter and you will find them.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 11:05 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Google the term Walter and you will find them.
Be assured that I did so. (Besides that, I've online access to [nearly] all history periodicals.)

So I easily can say that none of the better known historians ever used that term. (You can google that, Finn!)
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 11:35 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I just tried that and other than unreferenced quotes in a few mmmm odd blogs, every reference to French Obstructionism I can find goes back to Andrew Jackson.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 01:03 pm
@revelette2,
To the extent that one believes that Bush was wrong for ordering the invasion of Iraq, blaming him for all time for the failures of his Administration is appropriate.

Blaming him for anything and everything that has happened or will happen in regards to Iraq may, as you suggest, be the way a lot of people's brains work, but it is not justifiable.

If, when Obama leaves office the ACA is operating relatively smoothly, but his successor botches up a key component of it which renders it a failure, it would not be appropriate to blame Obama for its ultimate failure. It would be inviting to do so since he's the one who launched it in the first place, but unless the botched component could not possibly have been executed properly and therefore the entire program was doomed from the start, an assertion that Obama was to blame would be a fallacy.

But there is such a thing as intervening causation and in fact the implications of such causes in determining liability (blame) are addressed in a legal doctrine. The current crisis reasonably invites discussion of the entire history of our involvement in Iraq, and so addressing the failures of Bush & Co as regards this involvement is not irrelevant. However, focusing on whatever blame Bush may deserve, when the issue at hand is how Obama may have helped create the current situation, or more immediately, how he is reacting to it, is pointless, unless, of course, the point is to divert focus away from Obama.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 01:15 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
What I can tell you Walter? The references I found indicate the phrase is commonly used.

I provide citations for the things I post all of the time.I'm obviously not a scholar, and this isn't a forums for scholars, and this time around I didn't bother to do it. You can assume, if you wish, that I made it up.

I can understand your reluctance to believe such an outrageous assertion though, what with France always being such a cooperative ally of the US and its fellow European nations. You and eh beth must be right, there is no such thing as French Obstructionism, and the French never did the things I've indicated.

I guess you also agree that because the French didn't join the Iraq Coalition it stands as proof that Saddam didn't have WMDs.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 01:30 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What I can tell you Walter? The references I found indicate the phrase is commonly used.


but where? I believe I made a pretty good effort to find it and having been paid to research at one stage of my life I really am better at it than a lot of people. I searched through google.ca as well as google.com
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 01:47 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
What I can tell you Walter? The references I found indicate the phrase is commonly used.
Though I just left the university's history library, I still can look up publications .... and search libraries' indexes.
So a small hint would be good - "commonly used" should be easy.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
You and eh beth must be right, there is no such thing as French Obstructionism ...
I've never said so. I only asked about thi term "commonly used" by historians.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I guess you also agree that because the French didn't join the Iraq Coalition it stands as proof that Saddam didn't have WMDs.
This is a bad guess. And I don't know with whom I could/should agree here. And why.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 02:15 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

I suppose since Bush was president when he started the war for no reason, he is going to be forever blamed for it.

If the ACA (obamacare) does not do well, Obama will forever be blamed for that as well, long after he is gone from presidency.


There were plenty of reasons, you just don't agree with them. But don't say there was no reason.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 02:22 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What I can tell you Walter? The references I found indicate the phrase is commonly used.


but where? I believe I made a pretty good effort to find it and having been paid to research at one stage of my life I really am better at it than a lot of people. I searched through google.ca as well as google.com


google link

Definitely a right winged term, but hardly the white whale you guys are making it out to be.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 02:37 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

google link

Definitely a right winged term, but hardly the white whale you guys are making it out to be.
And those links prove that said term is often/commonly used by historians? ("Grande schisme communiste" for instance, is something totally different, I think. But perhaps Finn really means it)
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 03:04 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
By saying Britain you implied the British people, this was an occasion when we went to war against the expressed wishes of the people. Blair was elected as a Labour prime minister, and should have acted like a Labour prime minister, like Harold Wilson.

I don't need a civics lesson from someone so contemptuous of our institutions thank you very much.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 03:32 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

By saying Britain you implied the British people, this was an occasion when we went to war against the expressed wishes of the people. Blair was elected as a Labour prime minister, and should have acted like a Labour prime minister, like Harold Wilson.
One of those moments, I will never forget, was when I attended a Labour meeting and the local MP, a minister in the Foreign Minister, was (quite literally) grilled by the assembly. (The next time I've met him, he didn't only give me a tour through the 'Indian Office' but encluded hand shakes with the Foreign Secretary ... [The private tour through the Houses of Parliament with his PA weren't bad, too] Wink )
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2014 03:46 pm
@izzythepush,
No I did not.

That you inferred that I did is not surprising, what with that giant chip on your shoulder.

I quoted the section of an article that contained

Quote:
...three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland)


I also posted

Quote:
France vetoed the US and UK backed response


This was the entire extent of any reference to the UK and I didn't even use the term "Britain."

Nothing I wrote can reasonably be interpreted as a statement that the majority of the British people supported either action.

Irrespective of who was the Prime Minister and what the majority of the British people may have felt, the United Kingdom (Britain if you prefer) did contribute troops to the invasion force and did support the EU designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

The notion that I must substitute "Blair" for "United Kingdom" or "Britain," within the context of what I posted, because his decisions were not supported by a majority of your countrymen is truly absurd.

In addition, I didn't offer you a civics lesson and I am not contemptuous of British institutions (quite the contrary). You’re exhibiting paranoid belligerence and I don't need to get further involved with it...thank you very much.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 12:07:53