Well, of course, but he didn’t do that. He just called her “she” throughout the whole thing. Very impersonal IMO.
YMMV.
So if I was talking about my mother and didn’t refer to her as MommaFinn, instead using the pronoun ‘she’, would you have a problem with it?
I mean, honestly, are you finding fault in a non-native english speaker’s use of pronouns?
sigh No, not at all. But from the first reference he never said, “my nanny died”. Not at all, nothing to indicate how he had ever known this woman in life. I would assume that, if you were talking about your mother, you would let us know you were talking about your mother in the first couple of sentences? I had to wade through most of the thread before I realized Alde wasn’t talking about his mother, daughter, wife, or even dog, and I think much of the impact was lost by people trying to piece together why he was mourning this person. It’s needless.
Anyway, the point remains that he got warned in GD and rushed to–reflect? apologize? explain he was just misunderstood?–nope; to Pit the warning itself.
Meh.
Although I, myself, do not agree totaly with the tack that he took, namely, that we expect everybody to support the troops and wear a yellow ribbon, the first few pages of this thread were a discussion on the double standard inherent in his warning, and that, I think, was quite valid.
It wasn’t an ‘UN edict’ it was a treaty that Sadaam agreed to.
He might not have imposed the sanctions but they were a direct result of him failing to fufil obligations he agreed to. He is responsible for every death that stemmed from his decision to break a treaty he agreed to.
Incorrect.
[url=http://i-p-o.org/un-sanctions-iraq.htm] The most basic right, the right to life, is being denied in fact to 18 million people by the continuation of the sanctions policy, implemented through the United Nations Security Council.
[/quote]
So, the sanctions themselves were given to us by God and thus anything that happens after that is someone else’s fault?
Could it be that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t have left a brutal dictator in power while starving his people?
Damnit!!!
Coding. ~grumbles~
How? Take a look at his first post in the thread in question.
Now compare that to that thread’s title & OP:
You really don’t see anything wrong with what Aldebaran posted?
When looked at from the perspective of someone for whom English is not a first language, I can see where he thought the OP was seriously asking something along the lines of “Okay…so Syria next, right?” rather than “Do you think it’s a good idea for the US to attack Syria next?”
That’s only part of it. I don’t see anything about the US owning the Middle East except in Aldebaran’s post. Outrageous hyperbole is Alde’s SOP.
Claiming that we have the right to execute ‘regime changes’ at will does indeed claim that we have ownership over other nations.
They aint called sovereign for nuthin’
The idea that we can just waltz in and pull a regime change whenever we feel like it presupposes that we own the place. If Canadian Dopers started going on about how it’s time to invade the US and remove the despot Bush to free the poor Americans, I think at least half of us would feel the same way.
Whats incorrect?
Exactly and the reason for these sanctions is Saddam’s failure to live up to his obligations.
God? why are you bringing God into this? If I go and rob a bank its not the states fault that I go to jail.
Maybe we shouldn’t have but that doesn’t change the fact that Saddam is responsible for millions of deaths.
The sanctions were imposed by the UN, not a treaty.
Because you seem to be making the argument that the sanctions themselves are somehow beyond reproach (ie. divine). The way I see it, the whole situation was a clusterfuck. The way you see it, everything but Sadaam’s actions are fine.
Yes, it does change that fact. At least it means that Sadaam was not solely responsible for those deaths.
If you are a homicidal maniac, and you hold a nation of millions in the palm of your hand, and I know that you’ll abuse them if given leeway…
Well then, if I leave you in power and do something to hurt your nation while not removing you from power, whose dumb idea was that?
You were, after all, talking about easily forseen consequences and blame.
Doesn’t it occur to you that Sadaam’s actions were predictable and that someone should’ve thought the whole thing through a little bit better?
So Saddam isn’t responsible for his actions becuase we could have removed him?
Please it was Saddam’s sole choice to break the treaty he signed, ignore demands from the U.N., value his WMDs over the lives of his people and horde money for his personal use instead of buying food for his people. He is responsible for all the deaths, no one else.
Shooting at American pilots IS an attack on the USA. How could it be otherwise?
I agree. FTR I can understand the position of the insurgents attacking soldiers, but why do they try to annihilate roadbuilders, doctors, engineers, and teachers? If all sides would agree not to harm noncombatants (and I am willing to admit that our side is guilty of that, too), it would be a good first step toward getting out of this mess within our lifetimes.
And didn’t you ask for it, with your continual sicko obsession with Aldebaran and your constant demand for personal details from him? If you dislike him so much, why bother to even read his posts?
You seem to be conducting a personal campaign against him which is beyond my comprehension. Why?? He has as much right to be a member here and voice his opinions as you have. YMMV, of course.
No.
So Sadaam isn’t solely responsible for the deaths.
Of course he’s responsible for his actions.
Yeesh.
Yes, and then it was the UN’s choice to devestate his nation for the sins of its leader.
Um, which WMD’s? Remember, there weren’t any?
As I already said,
Come on.
Look up “economic warfare.” The strategy makes perfect sense from the perspective of denying their enemies the ability to build an economically viable state. The continuing lack of gasoline and electricity in Baghdad is draining confidence in the Allawi government.