White Doors Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 kuzadd, you just refuse to answer two simple questions. Do you think Saddam was justified in invading Kuwait? I've shortened it to one for brevity as you had so much trouble when I had two. ready? go! Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
buffycat Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 White Doors: Kuwait WAS side drilling. Do you know what that is? Did you know he was given the nod by the US' representative at the time? Was he justified? Legally? Maybe. Certainly more justified than the current US occupation of that ravaged nation. Do I personally think he was justified? Well, no because I don't beleive you settle things with outright force, I would rather give diplomacy a chance and reserve the use of military force to defense only - but hey that's me. If I were to attack however, I would make it surgical and take out only those areas which were actively stealing my oil, of course thinking I had the backing of the US might make me more meglamaniacal! Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
ScottSA Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 White Doors:Kuwait WAS side drilling. Do you know what that is? Did you know he was given the nod by the US' representative at the time? Was he justified? Legally? Maybe. Certainly more justified than the current US occupation of that ravaged nation. Do I personally think he was justified? Well, no because I don't beleive you settle things with outright force, I would rather give diplomacy a chance and reserve the use of military force to defense only - but hey that's me. If I were to attack however, I would make it surgical and take out only those areas which were actively stealing my oil, of course thinking I had the backing of the US might make me more meglamaniacal! Saddam was not given the nod by the US, Kuwait may or may not have been slant drilling, and a border dispute does not, including 1939, justify an invasion under international law as we know it today. The only caveat to that is if the invasion is allowed by a UNSC resolution. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 slant drilling..... The vision of Kuwaiti derricks yards from the frontier drilling a few hundred feet into iraq........ This is wiki's comment In 1990 Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing Iraq's oil through slant drilling. Such claims are doubted to have been serious enough to justify war or the occupation of Kuwait, since the limits of directional drilling (at the time) made it unlikely that any such well could have been drilled much more than a mile from the surface location. Even doing so would have involved drilling sites close to the border and the use of sophisticated and easily identifiable equipment and personnel for extreme distances. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
buffycat Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Saddam was not given the nod by the US, Kuwait may or may not have been slant drilling, and a border dispute does not, including 1939, justify an invasion under international law as we know it today. The only caveat to that is if the invasion is allowed by a UNSC resolution. No one is saying he WAS justified - in their opinion! Sheesh read what I wrote: Do I personally think he was justified? Well, no because I don't beleive you settle things with outright force. But yeah he was given the 'nod' or have you forgotten he was such a useful idiot for the US? Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
Rue Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 quote from Figleaf; "All the quotes there confirm what I've said. Achmetjihad said 'regime', not 'Israel'." Figleaf I specifically went out and found and posted his comments that do not refer to the Israeli regime but the Israeli PEOPLE. When you read all of his quotes for the last 5 years in proper context you would understand "regime" and "Israelis" and anyone who supports Israel and "Zionists" ALL are who he targets. For you to pretend he only means the government of Israel and not its citizens is absurd as the quotes I produced showed. The destation and desire to destroy is not limited to the Israeli government, but Jewish Israelis, Jews world-wide, and anyone who supports Israel, i.e., American infidel. That is the point. To pretend his words are acceptable because they only are meant to say he wants the government gone and nothing else is just down right absurd if not ridiculous. Read the above comments on the holocaust and then his comments about removing JEWS back to Europe. We are not talking about a regime Figleaf. This is about targeting anyone in Israel who is Jewish, anyone outside Israel who is Jewish whether they support Israel or not, and anyone outside Israel who believes in its right to exist. His words couldn't be clearer. Quote
ScottSA Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Saddam was not given the nod by the US, Kuwait may or may not have been slant drilling, and a border dispute does not, including 1939, justify an invasion under international law as we know it today. The only caveat to that is if the invasion is allowed by a UNSC resolution. No one is saying he WAS justified - in their opinion! Sheesh read what I wrote: Do I personally think he was justified? Well, no because I don't beleive you settle things with outright force. But yeah he was given the 'nod' or have you forgotten he was such a useful idiot for the US? Then why did you bring up the drilling? And no, Iraq was not given "the nod." I certainly remember the hoopla over April Gillespie or whatever her name was, but that didn't constitute anything close to "a nod" in spite of the hay the left tried to make with it. The same left, I might add, who went on to claim that up to 60,000 American casualties could be expected from GW I. Quote
buffycat Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Ahhh the infamous 'Left' the last refuge of those who have nothing REAL to offer, just partisan bullcrap. I mention the side drilling since it was one of the excuses used by Saddam - nothing more. Learn to read. Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
M.Dancer Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Ahhh the infamous 'Left' the last refuge of those who have nothing REAL to offer, just partisan bullcrap.I mention the side drilling since it was one of the excuses used by Saddam - nothing more. Learn to read. Which may (ahem) justified the inavsion, legally..... Tangled web....... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ScottSA Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Ahhh the infamous 'Left' the last refuge of those who have nothing REAL to offer, just partisan bullcrap.I mention the side drilling since it was one of the excuses used by Saddam - nothing more. Learn to read. The infamous "left" may be a refuge, but it's also a long standing and appropriate label for folks of certain political persuasions, so I use it as a descriptive of those people who set up a yowl about all aspects of GW I. Saddam didn't use side drilling as an excuse. He used slant drilling as an excuse. Quote
kuzadd Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 kuzadd, you just refuse to answer two simple questions.Do you think Saddam was justified in invading Kuwait? I've shortened it to one for brevity as you had so much trouble when I had two. ready? go! White Doors, dear, oh dear , sigh................. Were you asking these questions in this thread, or did you drag your nonsense over here wrt the other posts? You don't get, I am mostly ignoring you, for the reasons I have stated more then once in the other thread Which apparently you cannot read? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
scribblet Posted June 8, 2007 Author Report Posted June 8, 2007 Guess your not getting an answer Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
ScottSA Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 Nope. Not much of a reply there at all. There's a fellow on another board I used to visit like that. His response, whenever pushed into a corner, was to announce that he was far too clever to deal with the sorry likes of whoever had him by the short hairs, declare victory, and slink away shouting insults over his shoulder. We called him different variations of the name Turgidius Bloviatus Pontificus. Quote
Figleaf Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 Either way, why do you need MY condemnation? Because you CLAIM to be impartial and I just wanted to point out that you are not. 1) I'm not sure where you got the impression I claimed to be 'impartial'. I have a definite preference for Western society and values over totalitarian middle eastern regimes. 2) Demanding that the media not stump for war by making up shit is not a bias, it's a desire for truth and professional integrity. Quote
Figleaf Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 Rue -- I read the quotes you provided. If you read them closely, and don't imputing extras, they add up to much less than the accusations about them. Wait! I'm NOT saying Ahabjihad doesn't hate Israel, I'm NOT saying he doesn't hate Jewish people, I'm not saying he's not a threat to the west. I am saying: (1) We are ill served by a media that cannot report a world leader's words properly, no matter how much of a loony toon he seems to be. (2) Maybe rather than being a simple raving lunatic, Afflictjihad is a complex conniving lunatic. Quote
ScottSA Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 Rue --I read the quotes you provided. If you read them closely, and don't imputing extras, they add up to much less than the accusations about them. Wait! I'm NOT saying Ahabjihad doesn't hate Israel, I'm NOT saying he doesn't hate Jewish people, I'm not saying he's not a threat to the west. I am saying: (1) We are ill served by a media that cannot report a world leader's words properly, no matter how much of a loony toon he seems to be. (2) Maybe rather than being a simple raving lunatic, Afflictjihad is a complex conniving lunatic. A swealian squirm par excellence... Quote
kuzadd Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 Rue -- I read the quotes you provided. If you read them closely, and don't imputing extras, they add up to much less than the accusations about them. Wait! I'm NOT saying Ahabjihad doesn't hate Israel, I'm NOT saying he doesn't hate Jewish people, I'm not saying he's not a threat to the west. I am saying: (1) We are ill served by a media that cannot report a world leader's words properly, no matter how much of a loony toon he seems to be. (2) Maybe rather than being a simple raving lunatic, Afflictjihad is a complex conniving lunatic. A swealian squirm par excellence... hey scottsa, what would it matter what figleaf said, or I said? As long as it is NOT what you or other's of your ilk want it to be, (scriblett, whitedoors) it won't serve your purpose, and you will then spout endless nonsense, name callings, smear, big lie, etc., so really what is your , (or other's like you) point? I mean it doesn't matter, cause none of you are looking for discussion, your looking for "confirmation" of your own suppositions. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 Guess your not getting an answer Gee, and I thought you said you had put me on ignore? I was so hopeful, yet clearly you didn't. No surprise there. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
jbg Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 Guess your not getting an answer Gee, and I thought you said you had put me on ignore? I was so hopeful, yet clearly you didn't.No surprise there. This exchange of sophomoric nonesence is what drives people away from bulletin board posting. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
scribblet Posted June 9, 2007 Author Report Posted June 9, 2007 Guess your not getting an answer Gee, and I thought you said you had put me on ignore? I was so hopeful, yet clearly you didn't.No surprise there. This exchange of sophomoric nonesence is what drives people away from bulletin board posting. You've got that right, it ads nothing to the debate, but no surprise there. The problem with putting people on ignore is that you often get to read their replies when other people quote them. No matter, it speeds up the process of scrolling by and allows you to read if you so choose. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Figleaf Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 Rue -- I read the quotes you provided. If you read them closely, and don't imputing extras, they add up to much less than the accusations about them. Wait! I'm NOT saying Ahabjihad doesn't hate Israel, I'm NOT saying he doesn't hate Jewish people, I'm not saying he's not a threat to the west. I am saying: (1) We are ill served by a media that cannot report a world leader's words properly, no matter how much of a loony toon he seems to be. (2) Maybe rather than being a simple raving lunatic, Afflictjihad is a complex conniving lunatic. A swealian squirm par excellence... Oh, you're back. Too bad. Did you have anything to contribtute to the discussion here? Or can we count on you to limit your commentary to one-line clutter? In case you hadn't noticed, Rue and I were discussing media coverage and Iran's position in the Middle East. My view is that our media ought to report the facts and allowd us, the citizens to determine what to think of people like Arnojihad. I don't go for the proto-fascist Straussian approach of groomed news and manufactured consent, particularly consent to follies that kill thousands. Seemingly, you are unable to take on that position with argument, so you have determined to resort to trolling -- blighting discussions with incitement and inanity. Be careful, or I'll put you on Ignore. Quote
Figleaf Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 Guess your not getting an answer Gee, and I thought you said you had put me on ignore? I was so hopeful, yet clearly you didn't.No surprise there. This exchange of sophomoric nonesence is what drives people away from bulletin board posting. You've got that right, it ads nothing to the debate, ... If you know that, why did you start it? Quote
kuzadd Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 Guess your not getting an answer Gee, and I thought you said you had put me on ignore? I was so hopeful, yet clearly you didn't.No surprise there. This exchange of sophomoric nonesence is what drives people away from bulletin board posting. You've got that right, it ads nothing to the debate, but no surprise there. The problem with putting people on ignore is that you often get to read their replies when other people quote them. No matter, it speeds up the process of scrolling by and allows you to read if you so choose. Yes scribbs , why did you start it? Then continue to perpetuate it? So how exactly is it , you are now TRYING to take the high road? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
buffycat Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 Guess your not getting an answer Gee, and I thought you said you had put me on ignore? I was so hopeful, yet clearly you didn't.No surprise there. This exchange of sophomoric nonesence is what drives people away from bulletin board posting. You've got that right, it ads nothing to the debate, but no surprise there. The problem with putting people on ignore is that you often get to read their replies when other people quote them. No matter, it speeds up the process of scrolling by and allows you to read if you so choose. Yes scribbs , why did you start it? Then continue to perpetuate it? So how exactly is it , you are now TRYING to take the high road? Scrib´bling n. 1. The act or process of carding coarsely. Scribbling machine the machine used for the first carding of wool or other fiber; - called also scribbler. a. 1. Writing hastily or poorly. Ye newspaper witlings! ye pert scribbling folks! - Goldsmith. n. 1. The act of writing hastily or idly. Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
Guest chilipeppers Posted June 9, 2007 Report Posted June 9, 2007 Maybe using the ignore feature will help. I really thought admin was doing something about this type of commentary. I must say buffycat and Kuzadd seem to be the worst offenders, or am I out of line even commenting. Have a great day I think it best not to participate in this type of derailment. Quote
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.