0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 03:25 am
Can we please get onto Thread 8 and stay there? My head is spinning and my clicker's overclucken.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 04:57 am
Divide and conquer ... K. Rove
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 12:06 pm
Good news from the Middle East.

"Kuwaiti women win right to vote

Conservatives in parliament have been blocking the law since 1999
The Kuwaiti parliament has voted to give women full political rights.
The amendment to the Kuwait's electoral law means women can for the first time vote and stand in parliamentary and local elections."
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 12:15 pm
this is a disaster. I was counting on Kuwait to hold the line. Wink
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 12:31 pm
I think, the fight was lost when Appenzell Innerrhoden (Swiss 'state') was forced by the Swiss federal court ("Bundesgericht") to give women the vote (27-nov-1990): until then the last but one place of male civilisation in the western world.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 12:33 pm
Walter, You are a ham.... .LOL
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 12:41 pm
15 more dead in Iraq. That's over 400 dead in just over two weeks. Will it get worse or better?

From the NYT:

"Insurgents Leave 15 Dead in a Series of Attacks in Iraq


By TERENCE NEILAN
and SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: May 16, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 16 - Sunni-led insurgents renewed their bloody attacks across Baghdad and outside the capital today, leaving at least 15 people dead and a number wounded, including three children."
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 12:45 pm
Er... gents, will you stop already? Enough with this thread. We are on V. 8. I won't tell you again.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=50814&start=390
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 06:26 pm
Setanta wrote:
...
It is just amazing. The answer to your claptrap was in the paragraph you quoted. You cannot reasonably assert that no wars would have taken place if Napoleon had not come to power. You cannot reasonably assert that Napoleon is responsible for the actions of the armies of those who opposed him. You cannot reasonably assert that Napoleon was responsible for pandemic disease.

True! And I'm glad I didn't do that.

But again you didn't answer my question. How many civilians were killed in Napolean's wars?

Setanta wrote:
You just don't get it.


Alas, I get what you apparently think is it.

If it probable that later some other tyrannical gangster would have done what Napoleon did, no one should be interested in how many civilians were killed in Napoleon's wars Question

Then you probably think that if it probable that later some other tyrannical gangster would have done what Saddam did, no one should be interested in how many civilians were killed by Saddam Question

Then you also probably think that if it probable that later some other tyrannical gangster would have done what Zarqawi did, no one should be interested in how many civilians were killed by Zarqawi Question

Then you also probably think that a tyrannical gangster is not responsible for the deaths caused by those defending themselves against that tyrannical gangster, especially if the defense is pre-emptive Question

Et Cetera Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 06:34 pm
Setanta wrote:
Couldn't forgo the snide comment, could you Fox. Now that the conservative intellectual heavy-weight has offered us the assessment from on high, i guess we can return this discussion to thread number 9, known as version 8.0, where it all began. I wonder if Ican brought it up here because he can no longer keep the threads straight in his mind, or because mentioning it here would make it difficult for others to access the posts in which he first offered this specious theory.

What specious theory?

Perhaps you think the following a specious theory. If so please explain why you think it a specious theory.

LEST YE FORGET

THE GENERAL ARGUMENT

Al Qaeda was/is a self declared agressor against the US. The governments in whose countries al Qaeda was/is based are accomplices to this agressor. It is al Qaeda and the governments in whose countries al Qaeda was/is based that must be stopped in our own self-defense.

Nothing the Bush&Adm or the Blair&Adm intended or didn’t intend, said or didn’t say, conspired or didn't conspire, or otherwise did or didn’t do can change these facts. The truth of the existence or non-existence of ready-to-use "WMD" in Iraq, or of a "link" between Iraq and al Qaeda cannot change these facts.

Pre-empting a tyrant consists of stopping him from hurting you more before he hurts you more. That is what we are attempting to do in Afghanistan and that is what we are attempting to do in Iraq[/quote]

Foxfyre wrote:
There are some, however, who think you must be seriously hurt or killed before you are allowed to protect yourself. The frightened wife must not get a restraining order against the man she knows will hurt or kill her until he actually does the deed. They are more concerned about the feelings of the young thug on the corner than they are about the fears of the driver who offends him when he locks the car door. The civil rights of the criminal are more important than the rights of innocent people to not be threatened by him. The rights of a terrorist to not be embarrassed or made uncomfortable are more important than the need of an innocent victim about to be beheaded. So, a pre-emptive strike against a country with a track record for terrorist acts and that is on the record as having intentions to hurt you must not be touched until they commit the act.
...


The US invasion of Iraq and the US invasion of Afghanistan were both pre-emptive wars by both US and British govenment declarations, and by valid logic in order to prevent future murderers of US and British citizens. Al Qaeda declared war against Americans in four different fatwas in 1992, 1996, 1998, and 2004. These fatwas (except the 2004 fatwa) and the war they repeatedly declared were actually perpetrated against Americans prior to our invasions of Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in March 2003.

Quote:
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report alleged, 8/21/2004 in CHAPTERS 1, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1: Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda et al perpetrated the following mass murders of Americans:
1. 2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;
2. 11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;
3. 6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;
4. 8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;
5. 12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;
6. 9/11/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--approximately 1500 dead Americans plus approximately 1500 dead non-Americans.


Quote:
President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that "harbor" terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that "support" terrorists.


The US subsequently attempted to pre-empt further attacks by al Qaeda and remove al Qaeda training bases and camps by invading and replacing the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, because of the failures of the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to remove al Qaeda training bases and camps from their respective countries.

The real objective (all the contrary political propaganda not withstanding) of the invasion of Afghanistan was removal of the al Qaeda training bases and camps in Afghanistan and the replacement of the Taliban regime with a government that would not allow al Qaeda bases and camps to be re-established in Afghanistan once the US left Afghanistan.

The real objective (all the contrary political propaganda not withstanding) of the invasion of Iraq was removal of the al Qaeda training bases and camps in Iraq and the replacement of the Saddam regime with a government that would not allow al Qaeda taining bases and camps to be re-established in Iraq once the US left Iraq.[/quote]

THE BASIC ARGUMENT

1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists. [Reference A, G]

2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]

3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]

4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan.

5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan. [Reference A]

6. Terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in December 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier, and after we invaded Afghanistan in October 2001.[References A, B, C, D, F]

7. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. [References A, B, D, E, F]

8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

9. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

10. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.

REFERENCES

A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
NEW LINK:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com

D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

F. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org

G. Osama Bin Laden “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”-1996, and, Osama Bin Laden: Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans-1998
(scroll down to find them both)
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 06:39 pm
McTag wrote:
Er... gents, will you stop already? Enough with this thread. We are on V. 8. I won't tell you again.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=50814&start=390


OK!
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/07/2021 at 05:57:12