The US, UN & Iraq II

Blatham wrote:

Perc
Those who are really interested in the truth ought to actually ATTEND a university. Lind's statement is false in 95% of what it tries to claim and true in 5%. It's a statement rather in the same manner as 'all ex-military men are blood-thirsty, authoritarian war-mongers who beat their wives and children'.

Mr Linds writings clearly identfy him as a graduate of at least one university and unlike many of your informants he has probably done some fairly extensive research to provide evidence of his allegations.

How is that for useless rhetoric? I'm taking lessons from you and Tartarin.

Some of our troops have crossed the "Red Zone" which will supposedly trigger the release of Nerve Agents.

Contrary to the hopes and wishes of many observers the momentum of our forces in increasing by the minute.

Just reported----60 % of Iraq is under Coalition force control.

95% or more of the airspace is under control of Coalition airforces.
There is a possiblity of some anti-aircraft fire as yet not identified.

Dagmar wrote:

Perception, on the basis of your argument what Blatham said cannot be a blow to his omnipotence, for if one of his arguments is wrong it does not dismiss the whole of his person, right?

Huh?

Blatham is omnipotent----we have never laid a glove on him---he is always correct (notice I didn't say right). He is the father of a loving daughter who is hungry for his wise words as are all of us.
The Canadians are certain to erect a monument as a testament to his omnipotence.

However he may never be able to cross the border into the US to buy bargains or to purchase cheap gas---small price to pay for a man of his intregrity and wisdom.

Cheers Blatham

Reports indicate that the Republican Guard has been ordered to stay outside the Capital of Baghdad ---- the rotten regime is still very much afraid of a coup by these forces.

Only the Special Republican Guard is allowed in the city.

The core of the apple is rotten and is turning to mush before our eyes.

We need to rename this discussion, "The Perception Show".

Go get 'em, Tiger!

My turn: huh? I just followed your logic, perception. You have done the same logical mistake you claimed Blatham did (and you proceeded to explain why it is in your opinion illogical, thus I need not to).

Dagmar wrote:

My turn: huh? I just followed your logic, perception. You have done the same logical mistake you claimed Blatham did (and you proceeded to explain why it is in your opinion illogical, thus I need not to).


You may have confused yourself ----- you surely confused me.

How 'bout we knock off the interpersonal squabbling and get back to the issues at discussion here, huh? Another suggestion ... if certain members care to take the off-topic stuff to PM, please keep THAT within the TOS as well.

Thanks

TW wrote:

We need to rename this discussion, "The Perception Show".

Go get 'em, Tiger!

Thanks TW---I did inform folks that I had an anti-hate machine of my own design idly quietly----I'm turning up the throttle a tad.

Please jump in here with me.

Nope, I am not confused. Perhaps you may want to review your argument about logic you posted in response to Blatham, if it still is confusing, it is not my doing ;-)
It really is not important and is getting off the topic at this point, I shall say no more.

Timber wrote:

How 'bout we nock off the interpersonal squabbling and get back to the issues at discussion here, huh?

Yes sir.

I don't aim anything against any person, I followed a line of arguments is all. I know the rules.

Yes Ma'am.

Notice to all---the President is not hiding in his bunker---he is out acting like a leader is supposed to act----daring the enemy to take him out---he's in Philadelphia today.

Percy - I am on your side ideologically, if not tactically. I see no logic in debating those who have no interest in considering a point of view other than their own. It is a waste of time.

I do tend to think you'd fare better if you took the pitch of battle down a notch from "fevered" to "intense", but that's just one donkey's opinion.

Regards,
TW

Please God let him be reading to school kids .... we have enough trouble

TW wrote:

I do tend to think you'd fare better if you took the pitch of battle down a notch from "fevered" to "intense", but that's just one donkey's opinion.

Regards,
TW

I'd be happy to do just that but you, Timber, Asherman, and George have proven the futility of that---that only works when the other side understands logic.

Focus, kids, focus. One another are not the subject at discussion.

Here is the link to theUN Millenium Declaration. At the time of signing (September 2000) it was a big deal and was taken rather seriously by all.
The excerpt below deals with commitments to international security. From that list of commitments almost all were broken in this current conflict. Is anyone as worried as I am that the U.S. (even if we assume that the motivation is purely the pursuit of democracy and better life for the Iraqi people) will simply not be able to 'pull it off' on its own, especially after the war, when it will come to administering Iraq? On NPR the reports of the hostility of common Iraquis towards the troops are increasing in frequency. Would it not be desirable to have international presence at least after the war?

Excerpt:

II. Peace, security and disarmament

8. We will spare no effort to free our peoples from the scourge of war, whether within or between States, which has claimed more than 5 million lives in the past decade. We will also seek to eliminate the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction.
9. We resolve therefore:
• To strengthen respect for the rule of law in international as in national affairs and, in particular, to ensure compliance by Member States with the decisions of the International Court of Justice, in compliance with the Charter of the United Nations, in cases to which they are parties.
• To make the United Nations more effective in maintaining peace and security by giving it the resources and tools it needs for conflict prevention, peaceful resolution of disputes, peacekeeping, post-conflict peace-building and reconstruction. In this context, we take note of the report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations and request the General Assembly to consider its recommendations expeditiously.
• To strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Charter.
• To ensure the implementation, by States Parties, of treaties in areas such as arms control and disarmament and of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and call upon all States to consider signing and ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
• To take concerted action against international terrorism, and to accede as soon as possible to all the relevant international conventions.

dag, re Iraqi civilian hostility toward US troops, I sense there is more evidence of the phenomenon in the conjectures and postulations of The Media than is evidenced by e-mails I have been receiving from a broad spectrum of folks currently wearing battledress and interfacing with Iraqi civilians. I admit my sample universe is not statistically meaningful, and probably somewhat biased, but I'm getting a very different picture from folks closely involved.