If it were up to the UN, Israel would have been a smoking crater ages ago. The US is the only friend Israel has. I don’t agree with sanctions on Iraq because they only harm the people of Iraq while the criminal clique that runs that sad country go untouched.
**Bluesman, **
Thank you.
In related news, Pope John Paul IIasks Tariq Aziz to be more cooperate w/ inspections to avoid military action.
Your Eminence, thank you. Maybe it’ll do some good, with someone recognizing that we’re not pulling the accusations out of thin air.
gobear…Please forgive me if I’m being dense here but I still don’t understand. You believe that UN resolutions against Iraq carry the weight of law but the resolutions against Israel, passed by the same body that passed the resolutions against Iraq, are worthless?
“Slyly buying time”? No. It was pretty open. The Munich Agreement was at the end of September, 1938. Upon returning to Britain, Chamberlain immediately ordered the armed forces to increase their rearmament programs, nullifying any of the post-WWI treaties to which they had adhered to that point. Hitler’s Sudentland grab did not occur for another six months and the invasion of Poland only occurred 11 months after Munich. Any claim that Britain was at all prepared to tackle the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe at the time of the Czech tragedies (either Munich or Sudetenland) may be similarly dismissed.
And the complete record shows that Chamberlain’s airport statement was an off-the-cuff blunder that he immediately regretted–and said so. The standard lie is that he believed his own rhetoric and was, somehow, surprised by the invasion of Poland.
I believe that Israel needs to dismantle its West Bank settlements and cede the land to the Palestinians as a state in fulfillment of UN resolutions, but the UN neglected to demand assurances of Israel’s secuirty from attack from the Palestinians.
I don’t believe that Israel should be forced to commit national suicide, which is what the Arab bloc, as well as a good chunk of Europe, would like to see happen.
?
Chamberlain did say, “I believe it is peace for our time.” I seem to recall him waiving a paper, and he may have been at an airport–I’m not sure. In any event, it was less than a year away from when the Reich started bombing England in the blitz.
What was such “bad history, incompletely reported”? And what mythology do you speak of? Just curious.
Never mind. I just read your latest response.
I was trying to figure out a way to say most of this (what I know of it, anyway). Thanks for saying it for me, so to speak:)
White Lightning, yesterday you and I fought ignorance in a thread I’m sure you remember, where RM was being rather less than the sort fo debater we’re used to. Unless you have a source of military intelligence (were I any of you arguing with gobear, tomndebb, Bluesman or Airman I would not attempt to laugh at this phrase) equal or superior to Bluesman’s, you might wish to cede the point. I’ve got my sources too, but ultimately the horse’s mouth is where you’re going to find out what’s in the horse’s mouth.
"when you start claiming that you have facts, then you need to pony up. If your privileged position within the American military means that you can’t support your “factual” assertions, maybe you shouldn’t bother making them. "
mhendo:
I think the point that you are missing is that both Airman and Bluesman have pony’d it up. They may well give their lives for what they believe to be true. Let me ask you, are you willing to give your life to force peace? I think that there are several groups going to act as human shields–are you willing?
Airman and Bluesman thank you.
keturah…Just what did they pony up? It’s easy to say you have something. But in a debate when you say you have something it’s usually required that you present what you have. But they didn’t. So they shouldn’t have even put it on the table.
Reeder, they aren’t allowed to pony it up. However, it would appear as if the US military believes in it (the information Airman and Bluesman, among others, have) enough to be preparing to go to war. Is that sufficient guarantee that they know what they’re talking about?
Um, sorry, but the way most of us form our opinions is with the facts we have at hand, and of course is ‘fitted’ to our world view. And up until this point, I have not seen anything that has challenged my belief that a US invasion of Iraq is at best premature and at worst completely fucking wrong.
Good old America is making the world a safer place by bombing the shit out of Iraq? Yeah, right! Tell that to the mothers who will be burying their children afterwards. Tell that to the relatives of non-returning servicemen and women. Tell that to the people who live in the ME region who will have to clean up the mess afterwards (the US is NOT renowned for hanging around to clean up the shit they create).
Good old America is the biggest threat to global peace this world has ever seen. Just stop trying to cloak it with pretences of benevolence will you? Millions around the world this weekend have seen through the veil of bullshit…we can’t ALL be wrong.
Reeder I think something was lost in translation (as is easy on message boards) What I was trying to say-- both have information, some that we all have and possibly some classified. They are willing to give their lives based on their information. So what they pony up with are possibly their lives.
You’re talking to the wife of a US serviceman going to Iraq. You’re safe in Australia, and she’s risking the life of her husband.
You don’t have the right to talk to her that way.
Well, we have no reason to believe that Bluesman is laying his life on the line for this cause, and IIRC, AirmanDoors does not have a choice in the matter because he signed up in the Defence Forces: it’s an occupational hazard you might say.
Why should either of them be attributed the ethical high-ground?
Fuck you gobear. Australia sent troops over to the gulf last week. I have EVERY right to speak.
No, that’s not the point at all. I wasn’t questioning their courage or their belief, if you’d bother to even read my post. I was questioning their lack of evidence, or at least their unwillingness to provide evidence for their “factual” assertions.
I have no doubt that they believe certain things to be true, and that they’re willing to give up their life for those beliefs. But just because one is willing to risk one’s life to defend a belief does not mean that the belief is based on verifiable evidence. And the key assertion, made by both Airman and Bluesman, is that they have the facts and others don’t.
Given that these guys do hold certain beliefs, i’m quite admiring of their willingness to back them up with action. But this does not speak at all to the issue of factual evidence.
Thanks for playing, anyway, keturah. Please try again soon.
I repeat: you’re lecturing the wife of a serviceman who will be going to Iraq on the possiblity of the death of her husband.
Fuck you, you stupid piece of shit.
You’ll excuse me if I’m not yet convinced that invading Iraq guarentees this outcome, which is why I and others are protesting military action at this time.
I’ll even concede that Hussein likely still has in his possession biological and chemical weapons that he is not entitled to. (I don’t believe he is even close to possessing nuclear weapons, however; but if someone has evidence, I’m listening.)
Right now, Hussein is less of a threat than others (al-Qaida, North Korea) because world attention and, yes, the threat of invasion, has contained him. This gives us the luxury of finding a solution other than war. Convince Hussein to go into exile, assassinate him, anything, but what are the costs of ousting him in this manner? Bin Laden, if he is truely still alive, would like nothing more than to see the U.S. invade Iraq, destablize the area, and give al-Qaida another foothold in the region.
We risk a great deal with a war, especially if we go in without the blessing of the U.N.
Unjustified risk is what I and others are protesting.
That includes the risk to your husband, gobear. I mean that sincerely.