Carolyn Parrish

[Vanni Fucci]

No, no. There was something else, athough it escapes me at the moment.

Something else...you mean another lie told to launch an illegal invasion?

No, a cease fire or peace agreement leaving him in power under certain conditons. UN backed of course. Don't make me look it up, I'm seeing duplicate.

Well that essentially was what Gulf War I was about, and the resultant sanctions...that Saddam would be allowed to remain in power, but the US would impose sanctions to starve the Iraqi people, which could then set the stage for Gulf War II...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I think WMD was a bad choice. Saddam had actually violated several terms of the ceasefire (or whatever it was) that would have justified his removal.

According to international law, to which the US is a signatory, the only justifications a pre-emptive strike and subsequent invasion is a clear and imminent threat to peace and security...Saddam and Iraq posed no threat to the US...without the WMD "evidence" they had no case to bring before the General Assembly...

There is no justification for a memeber state of the United Nations to use unilateral force...

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/default.asp?task=read&id=8418&site=LE

By the way...Richard Perle has admitted that the invasion was illegal under international law...

War Critics Astonished as U.S. Hawk Admits Invasion Was Illegal

You may be right, BUT, given that this was close to 9-11, and that Saddam had repeatedly violated the nuclear inspection requirements, and remembering his invasion of Kuwait, and also knowing how Saddam felt towards the US, and how he treated his own people, many feel that any or all of these issues were justification for going to Iraq. Were they? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is they are there now, and the second inescapable fact is that no attacks have taken place in the US since 9-11.

By that logic, I think that Dubya is an asshole, so I think I'll muster up a coalition, and invade the US, and depose the pheckin' phecker...casualties be damned, I say...we'll march on Washington and burn the pheckin' Whitehouse to the ground...shock and awe baby, yeah...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

According the Mr. Musicman international law is null and void if the invadee is deemed to be an asshole by the invader...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

...and the second inescapable fact is that no attacks have taken place in the US since 9-11.

Possibly because the US was already in Iraq, and didn't need another terror attack to facilitate an invasion... :evil:

 

[peapod]

I just bet the Iraq people love the fact that they also have to "pay with their oil" to restore Iraq...nice innit...they bomb the country to hell and destroy everything...and than try to make out they are doing good deeds...making the iraq people pay for the destruction they did themselves..and than trying to make out like they are doing a good deed...Christ! how fecking pathetic :? :?

 

[Said1]

No, no. There was something else, athough it escapes me at the moment.

Something else...you mean another lie told to launch an illegal invasion?

No, a cease fire or peace agreement leaving him in power under certain conditons. UN backed of course. Don't make me look it up, I'm seeing duplicate.

Well that essentially was what Gulf War I was about, and the resultant sanctions...that Saddam would be allowed to remain in power, but the US would impose sanctions to starve the Iraqi people, which could then set the stage for Gulf War II...

UN sanctions which led to oil for food.

Sanctions he also violated, leading up to Gulf War II.


Wow, it's a lot eaier to complete a thought when your not into the sauce.

 

[manda]

According the Mr. Musicman international law is null and void if the invadee is deemed to be an asshole by the invader...

Well in that case, Bush is an asshole...lets go invade and do whatever we want!!!! :twisted:

 

[Said1]

By that logic, I think that Dubya is an asshole, so I think I'll muster up a coalition, and invade the US, and depose the pheckin' phecker...casualties be damned, I say...we'll march on Washington and burn the pheckin' Whitehouse to the ground...shock and awe baby, yeah...

I'm hearing the words to the song "Convoy". :lol:

 

[Musicman]

You gots to be kidding....how stupid do you think people are...Iraq was invaded for the sole purpose of stealing another country's natual resources. The target was suppose to be bin laden not saddam...Its about OIL and the american goverment has killed thousands of innocent civilians and served up their childern to fight their battles...just so they can line their own filthy pockets.. :twisted:

If that were the case, all they would have had to do was to invade Canada. There would not have been that much resistance, espcially in Alberta, it would have been closer to home, and the military resistance would have been less, given that the Iraqi armies were probably better equipped than Canada's, thanks to underfunding here in Canada.

Of course I am joking, but it makes as much sense as the argument about invading Iraq for oil.

Long live the blues, 12 bar variety.

 

[Musicman]

I think WMD was a bad choice. Saddam had actually violated several terms of the ceasefire (or whatever it was) that would have justified his removal.

According to international law, to which the US is a signatory, the only justifications a pre-emptive strike and subsequent invasion is a clear and imminent threat to peace and security...Saddam and Iraq posed no threat to the US...without the WMD "evidence" they had no case to bring before the General Assembly...

There is no justification for a memeber state of the United Nations to use unilateral force...

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/default.asp?task=read&id=8418&site=LE

By the way...Richard Perle has admitted that the invasion was illegal under international law...

War Critics Astonished as U.S. Hawk Admits Invasion Was Illegal

You may be right, BUT, given that this was close to 9-11, and that Saddam had repeatedly violated the nuclear inspection requirements, and remembering his invasion of Kuwait, and also knowing how Saddam felt towards the US, and how he treated his own people, many feel that any or all of these issues were justification for going to Iraq. Were they? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is they are there now, and the second inescapable fact is that no attacks have taken place in the US since 9-11.

By that logic, I think that Dubya is an asshole, so I think I'll muster up a coalition, and invade the US, and depose the pheckin' phecker...casualties be damned, I say...we'll march on Washington and burn the pheckin' Whitehouse to the ground...shock and awe baby, yeah...

You go girl.........

 

[Musicman]

According the Mr. Musicman international law is null and void if the invadee is deemed to be an asshole by the invader...

Please, if you are going to quote me, at least quote the truth, Vanni Fucci. I did not say that.

 

[Musicman]

I just bet the Iraq people love the fact that they also have to "pay with their oil" to restore Iraq...nice innit...they bomb the country to hell and destroy everything...and than try to make out they are doing good deeds...making the iraq people pay for the destruction they did themselves..and than trying to make out like they are doing a good deed...Christ! how fecking pathetic :? :?

Perhaps if Saddam had not taken the oil for money dollars and built lavish palaces and homes, and had instead used the money to support his people and country, the Iraqi people would not have been in such dire straits. The oil for money was a scam both by Saddam and the UN.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

According the Mr. Musicman international law is null and void if the invadee is deemed to be an asshole by the invader...

Please, if you are going to quote me, at least quote the truth, Vanni Fucci. I did not say that.

Actually I didn't quote you, I paraphrased, so don't get yer pheckin' panties in a bunch...

Now would be your chance to tell us all what you really meant by:

You may be right, BUT, given that this was close to 9-11, and that Saddam had repeatedly violated the nuclear inspection requirements, and remembering his invasion of Kuwait, and also knowing how Saddam felt towards the US, and how he treated his own people, many feel that any or all of these issues were justification for going to Iraq. Were they? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is they are there now, and the second inescapable fact is that no attacks have taken place in the US since 9-11.

 

[Nascar_James]

I just bet the Iraq people love the fact that they also have to "pay with their oil" to restore Iraq...nice innit...they bomb the country to hell and destroy everything...and than try to make out they are doing good deeds...making the iraq people pay for the destruction they did themselves..and than trying to make out like they are doing a good deed...Christ! how fecking pathetic :? :?

Perhaps if Saddam had not taken the oil for money dollars and built lavish palaces and homes, and had instead used the money to support his people and country, the Iraqi people would not have been in such dire straits. The oil for money was a scam both by Saddam and the UN.

Musicman, there is no need for us to keep re-iterating ourselves to deaf ears on this issue. We are just wasting our effort. The bottom line is anyone associated with or participating in any sort of terrorist activity of any kind deserves to be taken out. Saddam was gulity of paying off tens of thousands of dollars to the familes of Palistinian suicide bombers. That is proof enough that he was participating in terrorist activity. He got what was coming to him.

 

[TenPenny]

You're right. "anyone associated with or participating in any sort of terrorist activity of any kind deserves to be taken out"

So, you'll support a massive purge/killing of catholics in Boston and New York, I assume? Since most of the IRA money came from there?

Are you going to lead the charge? How about Israel? Since most of the "founders" of Israel were terrorists, what's you suggestion there?

Or, perhaps the US???? The "Boston Tea Party" things was a terrorist act, so what's you stand on that?

Or, like most current "anti terrorists", is skin colour and religion part of the equation?????

 

[Musicman]

According the Mr. Musicman international law is null and void if the invadee is deemed to be an asshole by the invader...

Please, if you are going to quote me, at least quote the truth, Vanni Fucci. I did not say that.

Actually I didn't quote you, I paraphrased, so don't get yer pheckin' panties in a bunch...

Now would be your chance to tell us all what you really meant by:

You may be right, BUT, given that this was close to 9-11, and that Saddam had repeatedly violated the nuclear inspection requirements, and remembering his invasion of Kuwait, and also knowing how Saddam felt towards the US, and how he treated his own people, many feel that any or all of these issues were justification for going to Iraq. Were they? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is they are there now, and the second inescapable fact is that no attacks have taken place in the US since 9-11.

I meant exactly what I said, Vanni Fucci. What part is confusing to you?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Well said Dime-boy... :thumbleft:

 

[Musicman]

I just bet the Iraq people love the fact that they also have to "pay with their oil" to restore Iraq...nice innit...they bomb the country to hell and destroy everything...and than try to make out they are doing good deeds...making the iraq people pay for the destruction they did themselves..and than trying to make out like they are doing a good deed...Christ! how fecking pathetic :? :?

Perhaps if Saddam had not taken the oil for money dollars and built lavish palaces and homes, and had instead used the money to support his people and country, the Iraqi people would not have been in such dire straits. The oil for money was a scam both by Saddam and the UN.

Musicman, there is no need for us to keep re-iterating ourselves to deaf ears on this issue. We are just wasting our effort. The bottom line is anyone associated with or participating in any sort of terrorist activity of any kind deserves to be taken out. Saddam was gulity of paying off tens of thousands of dollars to the familes of Palistinian suicide bombers. That is proof enough that he was participating in terrorist activity. He got what was coming to him.

I agree, Nascar James. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I meant exactly what I said, Vanni Fucci. What part is confusing to you?

So then I paraphrased correctly... :lol: :lol:

 

[Musicman]

Re: RE: Carolyn Parrish

You're right. "anyone associated with or participating in any sort of terrorist activity of any kind deserves to be taken out"

So, you'll support a massive purge/killing of catholics in Boston and New York, I assume? Since most of the IRA money came from there?

Are you going to lead the charge? How about Israel? Since most of the "founders" of Israel were terrorists, what's you suggestion there?

Or, perhaps the US???? The "Boston Tea Party" things was a terrorist act, so what's you stand on that?

Or, like most current "anti terrorists", is skin colour and religion part of the equation?????

Anyone, whatever color or religion, that causes death and terror without justification is a target. And before all of you say that Bush is now a target, need I remind you of the original WTC bombings, the Embassies around the world, the attack on the USS Cole, and 9-11 were all done as first strikes, not retaliation for any US or any other countries attacks. Only after 9-11 did the US respond, with total justification. And yes, that includes the Oklahoma City Bombers, one of which has been executed, and the IRA. It takes no courage to deliberately attack innocent civilians to make your point. Yes, in armed conflict, innocent civilians are injured and hurt, but during an armed conflict, there is unfortunately the potential of this happening. Going to work on the 80th floor of the WTC should not have that potential, being drydocked in a port should have have that potential, and leaving your kids in daycare certainly should not have that potential.