historians may debate this until the cows come home but chamberlain’s stance may have been the only realistic one at the time, and gave the UK time to build up its armed forces, especially its airforce and radar.
It should be noted that the US only entered the war against germany after Hitler declared war on the US. It is an interesting question as to what would have happened if Hitler had not been so stupid.
Back to the OP, why is it that whenever I see a post starting “Why doesn’t AI never complain about X or Y”, I know that have never in their life read an amnesty report.
Sure, it’s realistic if you can’t win. Appeasement is an option if the enemy will beat you otherwise. But there is no reason for us to use such a policy.
Oh, I dunno about that. We were shoveling ‘Lend-Lease’ aid to GB as fast as ships could get it over there. Maybe not an overt act of war, but pretty damned close.
DrDeth I am really getting tired of all your ignorant crap and maybe the only way to explain to you my thoughts would be in the Pit. Please provide cites supporting your assertions which I say are lies and you are a liar who makes up crap all the time. Please demonstrate AI has or had communist ties and please show AI does not uniformly report abuses anywhere in the world. Feel free to start it in the Pit because I have a feeling that is where we might end.
If you actually read AI’s country reports, they dispassionately report human rights abuses. There are so holes in their methodology, such as not really considering terrorism itself to be a human rights abuse. But no system is perfect. And AI did take time to condemn Palestinian suicide bombers recently.
No regard for international law and will beat the crap out of any country it pleases? Your rhetoric is propaganda bullshit. You obviously omit the twelve UN resolutions against Iraq, the cease-fire relying on Iraq’s cooperation, and the admitted lack of cooperation by the rest of the world. As well as the risk from terrorists with WMD, that that lack of cooperation has exacerbated. sailor your obvious agenda and rhotoricle masturbating on issues like this does not help your arguments.
And the war against Japan in WWII killed more non-combatants in Asia than died at Pearl Harbor, so what the hell is your point?
“The ‘war on terror,’** far from making the world a safer place, has made it more dangerous** by curtailing human rights, undermining the rule of international law and shielding governments from scrutiny,” Khan said.
Really?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sailor *
**Not to mention that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so it can hardly be said they are paying for that. **
[/QUOTE
Very well said. So why infer that they are?
More hyperbolic rhetoric that just defines your position and you. In accord with your “getting tired” of DrDeth’s “ignorant crap”, Please provide cites supporting your assertions that any country who wants to come down heavy handed only has to use the label “terrorism” to get away with anything they want." Or even better, provide such is the case that Cuba has been less than condemned for their actions.
Excuse me? Where did I lie? And your personal attacks show your integrity and decency wich is why I am loath to respond to any or your half baked assertions on any thread. But with your accusing me of lying and casting aspersions specifically at me I would ask you to justify such a statement.
I am not going to waste much time with you but anyway: there is NO UN resolution authorizing the use of force by the USA. The agression was an illegal act. The risk of terrorists with WMD is pure, unadulterated, BS as has been proven. Masturbation I know but I have never heard of “rhotoricle” masturbation.
Illegal according to whom? The UN? I wonder if you could tell me why the “laws” of the UN have any relevance. And just to pre-empt your probable response, a nebulous claim of “international law”, what makes international law law? What body or people votes on it, and what reason do we have to believe that they are the right people to be voting on it? I can’t honestly respect the legal authority of an institution which gives equal moral credence to the US and China.
Please note that the USA is signatory to a number of treaties (like the Vienna convention) and member of a number of international organizations, including the UN, which are sources of international law. I hope you are not defending the idea that the USA has no obligation to respect international law. If so, why would other countries?
That has to be the most moronic quip I have heard since Baghdad Bob’s 15 minutes.
And every damn resolution promised consequences. “Very severe”, according to 1441. That is hardly a country acting a bully and doing something just because it pleases. Get another hobby besides the hyperbole please. You suck at it.
Spite. The “damn resolution” has been discyussed on this boards to death. The UN is the last interpreter of its own resolutions and it never said it had authorised force. And you may defend the notion that Saddam Hussein had WMD but I think the evidence has clearly shown that is not true. I am not going to rehash that. There are plenty of threads and you are definitely in a very small minority.
I have been in many of the discussions thank you. Authorisation aside, the resolution was the intent of the US and her allies on paper. For over a decade. Iraq defied their agreements. And do not say they havn’t because I will call you a liar and then bring up cites out the ass that proves that the inspectors and every goddamn nation in the UN besides Iraq agreed with the lack of cooperation according to UN doccuments.
More hyperbole that you suck at. If you have a point to make stick to the facts. The lack of evidence shows that they have not been found yet. And one of the possibilities is he di not have them and faced the sanctions and ostricism of the world for the hell of it. But if you beleive that crock of shit, and expect anyone over 12 to believe it, moronic is a kind word.
>> But if you beleive that crock of shit, and expect anyone over 12 to believe it, moronic is a kind word.
Well, you just said you have been in many of the discussions so I suppose you have seen there are many people who disagree with you. There are many people over 12 who disagree with you. In fact, they are a majority around the world and huge numbers in the USA. You and I will just have to agree to disagree. BTW President Chirac just said he agrees with me:
And BTW, do you also believe Amnesty International is tainted by communist ties? I see DrDeth is conspicuously absent.
I am by no means an expert on the rules of this forum, but if you want to continue making personal attacks and insults towards sailor (that are really not contributing to the discussion in this thread) perhaps the Pit would be a more appropriate forum.
I was refering to your assertion that Saddam had no WMD, and the current situation proves the he does not, nor has had them. And I was not arguing that the UN gave permission to the US to invade Iraq. If anything they where non-commital, or upset that the US never asked. My point was that your assertion that the US is proven to be just a bully and does whatever it pleases, wich you made sound like it does so without provocation, I reminded you about the resolutions passed against Iraq, wich the US was a major intigator in, and Iraq agreed to. And that’s the bottom line
I made no personal attacks against sailor. I just attacked his arguement. Not with as much finesse I would have liked, I am a hothead and beg forgiveness of any offense sailor might have taken personally. And it was contributing to the discussion 100%. So I think you are confused. GD gets heated, not the place for the easily offended.