Haliburton...

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 13, 2004, 4:25 pm

Kelshara wrote:Ah but Cartalas, I don't see the US going in to stop Russians from killing Chechnyans. They are within their borders after all!

I dont see anyone else either, And as far as im concern the Russians are in the right here.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 13, 2004, 4:27 pm

So if Russians are in the right, the same argument proves that Saddam was in the right. The situations are the same, a group of people wanting independence for themself. And they are willing to go to civil war to win it. And both Russians and Saddam has killed 10+K of the opposition.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 13, 2004, 4:29 pm

Kelshara wrote:So if Russians are in the right, the same argument proves that Saddam was in the right. The situations are the same, a group of people wanting independence for themself. And they are willing to go to civil war to win it. And both Russians and Saddam has killed 10+K of the opposition.

I dont remember the Iraq's resulting in terrorism against innocent people, It was the other way around Saddam was attacking innocent people.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 13, 2004, 4:40 pm

- Saddam attacked civilians.
- Russia has attacked civilians.

- Chechnians are fighting soldiers.
- Kurds were fighting soldiers.

- Chechnians wanted independence.
- Kurds wanted independence.

- Rebel Chechnians that the real leadership have opposed publically have attacked innocents.
- Some Kurdish groups attacked innocents (I KNOW they have in Turkey and they are fighting for the same cause).

You've argued yourself into a corner.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 13, 2004, 4:46 pm

Kelshara wrote:- Saddam attacked civilians.
- Russia has attacked civilians.

- Chechnians are fighting soldiers.
- Kurds were fighting soldiers.

- Chechnians wanted independence.
- Kurds wanted independence.

- Rebel Chechnians that the real leadership have opposed publically have attacked innocents.
- Some Kurdish groups attacked innocents (I KNOW they have in Turkey and they are fighting for the same cause).

You've argued yourself into a corner.

When did Russian soldiers take children hostage? Real convienant lets have our own lttle Chechnian group out there attacking innocent people and we will claim we dont support them. I call Bullshit.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 13, 2004, 5:02 pm

Actually Cartalas Russian soldiers took children as hostages during the school attack to try and force the terrorists to surrender. Not to mention the 10 000 Chechnians slaughtered by Russian soldiers in Chechnia which includes women, children, elderly etc. The atrocities conducted by Russian soldiers include rape, murder, torture etc.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » September 13, 2004, 5:08 pm

Cartalas wrote:Nope these people are not within the US borders.

The U.S. also created its borders itself, our borders were not imposed upon us by the British Empire.

If you're looking for similarities, pretend that the U.S. is Iraq and that the Native Americans (or Indians, whatever the current PC term is) are the Kurds.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 13, 2004, 6:39 pm

- Saddam attacked civilians.
- Russia has attacked civilians.

- Chechnians are fighting soldiers.
- Kurds were fighting soldiers.

- Chechnians wanted independence.
- Kurds wanted independence.

- Rebel Chechnians that the real leadership have opposed publically have attacked innocents.
- Some Kurdish groups attacked innocents (I KNOW they have in Turkey and they are fighting for the same cause).

You've argued yourself into a corner..

Kelshara

Great arguement Kelshara much of that is true, but your forgetting something.

While your supporting the Chechnians on killing children in a school or making excuses for them. You have always been supporting Saddam or making excuses for Saddam on the Kurds or putting it in a more favorable light.

So who are you for please make it clear or do you not know?
Im just wondering, I really dont know how you stand.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 13, 2004, 6:42 pm

I just love hwo some of the republicans put words in our mouths. Do you actually think we support the deaths of innocent people? Are you really that fucking dumb?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 13, 2004, 6:45 pm

While your supporting the Chechnians on killing children in a school or making excuses for them. You have always been supporting Saddam or making excuses for Saddam on the Kurds or putting it in a more favorable light.

Did I ever in a single post support the terrorists who attacked the school? No? Didn't think so. But in typical Republican fashion you take an argument that there is more to a situation and a lot of history behind it as supporting terrorism. I am a bit surprised this came from you, it is something I would have expected from Metanis or Cartalas. Nor have I ever a single time supported Saddam. However, I also don't support the joke of a reasoning for the war y'all like to spout off with. What will it be next week? Saddam is responsible for the brown water you call beer?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 13, 2004, 7:17 pm

Kelshara wrote:
While your supporting the Chechnians on killing children in a school or making excuses for them. You have always been supporting Saddam or making excuses for Saddam on the Kurds or putting it in a more favorable light.
Did I ever in a single post support the terrorists who attacked the school? No? Didn't think so. But in typical Republican fashion you take an argument that there is more to a situation and a lot of history behind it as supporting terrorism. I am a bit surprised this came from you, it is something I would have expected from Metanis or Cartalas. Nor have I ever a single time supported Saddam. However, I also don't support the joke of a reasoning for the war y'all like to spout off with. What will it be next week? Saddam is responsible for the brown water you call beer?

Ready - Fire - Aim

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 13, 2004, 9:17 pm

Just doing alittle Spin that everyone does on this board

I dont think your for killing children ect, but sometimes your points can put you in the light of making excuses for them.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 13, 2004, 9:34 pm

Well somebody has to try and balance the babble coming from the neocons here.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » September 13, 2004, 10:40 pm

Metanis wrote:Ready - Fire - Aim

Well if nothing else comes out of this thread, at least this gave me a chuckle.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 14, 2004, 12:45 am

I support the Kurds! They just want a little peice of land to call their own? And didn't WE promise them that? Didn't the US help them at the end of the Gulf war to stage a revolt? Then didn't G.H.W. Bush back down and let Saddam fly his Helicopters and thus use chemical weapons on those civilians? That dosen't get much press since W. got in the White House but I clearly remember the HORROR I had when learning what happened...

Who killed those people? By all accounts, WE DID because we let it happen... WE weilded the power at that stage in the game. I'm sure that is just one more reason GW wanted to get back in to clean up daddys screw up.... why it was a screw up I'll never know though. I mean we WON, quickly then didn't follow through... it was a sad day for America IMHO. And I say that in agreement with one of my best friends who's battle buddy had a clear shot on Saddam... but was ordered not to fire.

Marb

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 14, 2004, 1:08 am

Sirton wrote:
- Saddam attacked civilians.
- Russia has attacked civilians.

- Chechnians are fighting soldiers.
- Kurds were fighting soldiers.

- Chechnians wanted independence.
- Kurds wanted independence.

- Rebel Chechnians that the real leadership have opposed publically have attacked innocents.
- Some Kurdish groups attacked innocents (I KNOW they have in Turkey and they are fighting for the same cause).

You've argued yourself into a corner..
Kelshara

Great arguement Kelshara much of that is true, but your forgetting something.

While your supporting the Chechnians on killing children in a school or making excuses for them. You have always been supporting Saddam or making excuses for Saddam on the Kurds or putting it in a more favorable light.

So who are you for please make it clear or do you not know?
Im just wondering, I really dont know how you stand.

Throughout the 80's we were giving Iraq money to help with their war with Iran. After we found out they had gassed the kurds in 1988 our senate unanimously passed sanctions against Iraq to cut off their line to US technology. However this was killed by the whitehouse - why? So we could get post war reconstruction contracts.

We knew about Iraq using biological and chemical weapons in their war with Iran (plus helped provide some of it) since as early as 1984.

I find it kind of ironic that 13 years after the kurds were gassed we decide to go and 'liberate' these people.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 14, 2004, 4:19 pm

Hey I thought it was a mistake to not take him out way back then. I agree with much of what Marb. says, but remember France and the other arab countries and the fact of thinking about dealing with the same exact problem were dealing with right now were the biggest reasons we didnt finish it back then. Ohh also Senior lost to someone who only got 43% of the vote, thanks Perot.

The reason we are liberating them now is that 9/11 happened. That changed our foreign policy to actually doing what we wanted too, with or without the UN. Bush went to them and asked more than enough, France undermined us and threatened veto, wguch is what makes the UN useless. This gave Iraq plenty of time to move anything if they had it. Anyways, Clinton called for regime change in 1998..He said was late in his administration and was saving it to be taken care of in the next administration, so now it is in the process.

miir · Post by **miir** » September 14, 2004, 4:28 pm

That changed our foreign policy to actually doing what we wanted too, with or without the UN.

Don't you think that sets a rather disturbing precedent?

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » September 14, 2004, 9:06 pm

Sirton wrote:That changed our foreign policy to actually doing what we wanted too, with or without the UN. Bush went to them and asked more than enough, France undermined us and threatened veto, wguch is what makes the UN useless.

Thats actually some of the problem that the world have with the US at the moment. A sitting president with no clue on foreign affairs decide to do something (or get told to decide to do something), goes to the UN, get a no, then pinch a hissy fit and say "nyahnyahnyah, were gonna do it anyway", and start a war.
To take it to a grade school level so everyone on the boards can follow it, we basically got 4 kids.
Kid1 (Cheney, CIA, whichever you choose) tell Kid2 (Bush) that Kid3 (Iraq) are a bad boy. Kid3 go to Kid4 (UN), and ask if he wanna help beat up Kid3. Kid4 refuses, so Kid2 go beat up Kid3 anyway.

If that happened in a grade school, Kid2 would get punished. But because its on government level, Kid2 can get away with it.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 14, 2004, 9:12 pm

Sirton wrote:Hey I thought it was a mistake to not take him out way back then. I agree with much of what Marb. says, but remember France and the other arab countries and the fact of thinking about dealing with the same exact problem were dealing with right now were the biggest reasons we didnt finish it back then. Ohh also Senior lost to someone who only got 43% of the vote, thanks Perot.

The reason we are liberating them now is that 9/11 happened. That changed our foreign policy to actually doing what we wanted too, with or without the UN. Bush went to them and asked more than enough, France undermined us and threatened veto, wguch is what makes the UN useless. This gave Iraq plenty of time to move anything if they had it. Anyways, Clinton called for regime change in 1998..He said was late in his administration and was saving it to be taken care of in the next administration, so now it is in the process.

Well, his son won the white house without even winning the popular vote or even the electoral college (thanks repressed votes in florida)

btw, what were perots stances? I never knew too much of him...was he liberal/conservative left/right wing or an econimic moderate/social moderate etc etc

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 15, 2004, 8:59 am

France undermined us and threatened veto, wguch is what makes the UN useless

You forgot to finish your sentence with ". . .as a puppet of US foreign policy".
Five countries have UN veto power. Shall we quickly count up who has used it most?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 15, 2004, 1:24 pm

The UN is a joke. It's worthless with France holding veto power. The United States will do whatever it wants. If the UN wants to approve it that's great but the UN's opinion doesn't mean shit anymore if they ever did to begin with except to give liberals something to whine about.

The key members of the UN all have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with world peace. France wants their oil out of Iraq. The Russians are just looking for their piece of the pie as well.

It's scary that Kerry is a UN whipping boy. Look past what the UN is supposed to be for what it really is. Kerry will seek UN approval? lol. Time to suck some French cock Kerry!

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 15, 2004, 1:30 pm

Hoarmurath wrote:
Metanis wrote:Ready - Fire - Aim
Well if nothing else comes out of this thread, at least this gave me a chuckle.

I truly can't take credit for this. I've read it in various places over the years.

An interesting side-note, any sort of anti-ballistic missle defense system will likely use a variant of that strategy. Something to do with the physics involved. I haven't had enough coffee yet today to really grapple with the issue.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 15, 2004, 1:42 pm

The UN is a joke. It's worthless with France holding veto power.

I find it hillarious that you point out France as making it worthless due to it's veto power when the US has used it's veto power a hell of a lot more.

So: The UN is worthless with USA holding veto power.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 15, 2004, 1:58 pm

Kelshara wrote:
The UN is a joke. It's worthless with France holding veto power.
I find it hillarious that you point out France as making it worthless due to it's veto power when the US has used it's veto power a hell of a lot more.

So: The UN is worthless with USA holding veto power.

The UN is worthless. Period. Happy?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 15, 2004, 2:35 pm

The UN is worthless because people have veto power and can't stand not getting their way every single time. Case in point the hissy fit Bush threw over Iraq.

Throw out the veto power and go with majority rule. Only way to move the world as a whole forward.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 15, 2004, 2:37 pm

The UN is a joke. It's worthless with France holding veto power. The United States will do whatever it wants. If the UN wants to approve it that's great but the UN's opinion doesn't mean shit anymore if they ever did to begin with except to give liberals something to whine about.

The key members of the UN all have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with world peace. France wants their oil out of Iraq. The Russians are just looking for their piece of the pie as well.

It's scary that Kerry is a UN whipping boy. Look past what the UN is supposed to be for what it really is. Kerry will seek UN approval? lol. Time to suck some French cock Kerry!

Uhhhhh

The single biggest detriment to the effective functioning of the United Nations has been the USA. I don't necessarily blame the USA for taking the positions which has forced this to happen, but come on. Let's at least be honest here.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 15, 2004, 2:50 pm

Sueven wrote:
The UN is a joke. It's worthless with France holding veto power. The United States will do whatever it wants. If the UN wants to approve it that's great but the UN's opinion doesn't mean shit anymore if they ever did to begin with except to give liberals something to whine about.

The key members of the UN all have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with world peace. France wants their oil out of Iraq. The Russians are just looking for their piece of the pie as well.

It's scary that Kerry is a UN whipping boy. Look past what the UN is supposed to be for what it really is. Kerry will seek UN approval? lol. Time to suck some French cock Kerry!
Uhhhhh

The single biggest detriment to the effective functioning of the United Nations has been the USA. I don't necessarily blame the USA for taking the positions which has forced this to happen, but come on. Let's at least be honest here.

Like my step-dad used to say... you are so full of shit your eyeballs are brown.

You want honesty? Look at the history of communism and anti-semitism played out in the UN. As an American I'm extremely proud that the USA has stood up repeatedly for the causes of freedom and against anti-Israeli bigotry.

You want more honesty? The positions taken by USA in the UN are usually supported overwhelmingly by the populace of the USA.

Holy shit Batman! A real democracy in action!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 15, 2004, 3:06 pm

So you attempting to say that the opinions held by other UN countries are not supported by the majority of their countries' inhabitants? You on crack?

And btw.. Telling Israel to stop atrocities is not being anti-semitic.