BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
OneEighty
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-22-2008, 08:07 PM   #1
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

The Effective UN

Who was arguing that UN forces were effective??
UNIFIL finds Hezbollah arms; gunmen scatter peacekeepers
By Barak Ravid and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents
Tags: UNIFIL, south Lebanon

Armed Hezbollah militants warded off members of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) last month when the peacekeepers discovered a truck carrying weapons and ammunition belonging to the Lebanon-based guerilla group.

The incident was referred to briefly in a semi-yearly report submitted to the UN Security Council by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. The incident was the first time that UNIFIL forces were confronted by armed Hezbollah men south of Lebanon's Litani River, an area which Security Council resolution 1701 prohibits Hezbollah from entering....
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      04-23-2008, 10:43 PM   #2
Jaws
Lieutenant Colonel
Jaws's Avatar
Canada
21
Rep
1,736
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 325i mt
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Edmonton

iTrader: (0)

Yyyyawn.
__________________
2006 325i - Sparkling Graphite
2000 S2000 - New Formula Red
2007 Chev Silverado crew cab Z71
Appreciate 0
      04-24-2008, 10:24 AM   #3
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws View Post
Yyyyawn.
What a perfect synopsis of the attitude of those who believe the UN should look to the UN to solve the world's problems.

Insist the UN be tasked and then when they fail, yawn.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      04-24-2008, 11:08 AM   #4
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,973
Posts

 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
What a perfect synopsis of the attitude of those who believe the UN should look to the UN to solve the world's problems.

Insist the UN be tasked and then when they fail, yawn.
therefore, completely justified that the US (broke) should take care of all world problems (fine print: only if there is oil in question or involves Israels existence...)
Appreciate 0
      04-25-2008, 10:14 AM   #5
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
480
Rep
5,352
Posts

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post
therefore, completely justified that the US (broke) should take care of all world problems (fine print: only if there is oil in question or involves Israels existence...)
Couldnt have nailed it better myself, especially with the "fine print"...

What about Mugabe? US envoy Jendayi Frazer says that Mugabe lost the vote to Tsvangirai. Even the Church are against Mugabe:

Archbishop of York: "Mugabe is living on borrowed time"

Yet we see no US/UK lead force heading out to South Africa to deal with it. Hell, they went into Iraq on a LOT less! *cough* lies *cough*...
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-25-2008, 10:44 AM   #6
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hks786 View Post
Couldnt have nailed it better myself, especially with the "fine print"...

What about Mugabe? US envoy Jendayi Frazer says that Mugabe lost the vote to Tsvangirai. Even the Church are against Mugabe:

Archbishop of York: "Mugabe is living on borrowed time"

Yet we see no US/UK lead force heading out to South Africa to deal with it. Hell, they went into Iraq on a LOT less! *cough* lies *cough*...
It never ceases to amaze me how often this fallacious argument is made. What is the logic in arguing that unless you can solve all problems you should not try to solve any? Does anyone actually live their life this way? When in history has any nation operated in that fashion?

It is simply an empty argument.

Your underlying point that the US/UK had less justification to depose Saddam is simply false. Mugabee is a monster but as far as I am aware he has not invaded two of his neighbors, used WMD on multiple occasions, harbored international terrorists, financed suicide bombings, or breached a ceasefire agreement.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      04-25-2008, 11:07 AM   #7
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
480
Rep
5,352
Posts

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
What is the logic in arguing that unless you can solve all problems you should not try to solve any?
I was simply agreeing with the "fine print" in the above post. I'm arguing against the US/UK's foreign policies, not some stupid logic about being selective about which problems to solve.

That logic is stupid for 2 reason:

1) its stupid
2) its based on the assumption that I agreed the US is trying to make the world a better place and solve problems. I didnt say any such thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
Your underlying point that the US/UK had less justification to depose Saddam is simply false.
Read what I said. I didnt mention Saddam's name once. I did mention Iraq however. Oh and please dont try to paint Saddam as the "bad guy" without mentioning the actions of other countries. The US is one of them...you're only fooling yourself.

Thanks for the history lesson but you've shown that you are biased in how you interpret history
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-25-2008, 11:53 AM   #8
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hks786 View Post
I was simply agreeing with the "fine print" in the above post. I'm arguing against the US/UK's foreign policies, not some stupid logic about being selective about which problems to solve.
That is an even more ridiculous argument. Was their oil or an Israeli interest in Bosnia? Kosovo? Somalia? Afghanistan? Panama? Grenada?

Quote:
Read what I said. I didnt mention Saddam's name once. I did mention Iraq however. Oh and please dont try to paint Saddam as the "bad guy" without mentioning the actions of other countries. The US is one of them...you're only fooling yourself.

Thanks for the history lesson but you've shown that you are biased in how you interpret history
Whether you mentioned Saddam or not is irrelevant as you did mention the US/UK justification for invading Iraq and deposing his regime.

Saddam was a bad guy. I am not sure how he can be defined otherwise.

How did what I said show a bias? Was any of it untrue?
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      04-25-2008, 01:05 PM   #9
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
480
Rep
5,352
Posts

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
That is an even more ridiculous argument. Was their oil or an Israeli interest in Bosnia? Kosovo? Somalia? Afghanistan? Panama? Grenada?
You are a hard guy to please Noone said the ONLY reasons the US invades countries are Oil/Israel's right to exist. It was a sarcastic comment to show that US motives are dirty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
Whether you mentioned Saddam or not is irrelevant as you did mention the US/UK justification for invading Iraq and deposing his regime.

Saddam was a bad guy. I am not sure how he can be defined otherwise.

How did what I said show a bias? Was any of it untrue?
No it IS relevant. We were told about WMD that didnt exist!!!!!! So let's not change the subject. I did NOT mention Saddams name or right to exist as head of state in Iraq OR the disposal of his regime! I merely questioned the UK/US motives for invading the country.

Yeah Saddam was a bad guy. He's not the only 1 though. I'm not giving you a history lesson, go check up on history with an unbiased frame of mind and you'll be suprised at how many "bad guys" there are.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-25-2008, 01:28 PM   #10
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hks786 View Post
You are a hard guy to please Noone said the ONLY reasons the US invades countries are Oil/Israel's right to exist. It was a sarcastic comment to show that US motives are dirty.
"... only if there is oil in question or involves Israels existence..." How is this not saying. "the ONLY reasons the US invades countries are Oil/Israel's right to exist?"

Quote:
No it IS relevant. We were told about WMD that didnt exist!!!!!! So let's not change the subject. I did NOT mention Saddams name or right to exist as head of state in Iraq OR the disposal of his regime! I merely questioned the UK/US motives for invading the country.

Yeah Saddam was a bad guy. He's not the only 1 though. I'm not giving you a history lesson, go check up on history with an unbiased frame of mind and you'll be suprised at how many "bad guys" there are.
It is not relevant since Saddam ruled Iraq as a dictator. The objective of the invasion was the removal of his regime from power. Iraq was a threat because of his actions.

To take a page from your book, no one said Saddam was the only bad guy.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      04-25-2008, 02:23 PM   #11
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,973
Posts

 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
It never ceases to amaze me how often this fallacious argument is made. What is the logic in arguing that unless you can solve all problems you should not try to solve any? Does anyone actually live their life this way? When in history has any nation operated in that fashion?

It is simply an empty argument.

Your underlying point that the US/UK had less justification to depose Saddam is simply false. Mugabee is a monster but as far as I am aware he has not invaded two of his neighbors, used WMD on multiple occasions, harbored international terrorists, financed suicide bombings, or breached a ceasefire agreement.
Removing the dictator in one coutry that did not threaten us or our alies and creating (or allowing to) a new Nuclear nation (NK), allowing 2M refugies and dead in Darfur, having much more serious potential nuclear nation right there (Iran) is FAR, FAR from solving ANY of the problems.

Stupid argument above...
Appreciate 0
      04-25-2008, 03:38 PM   #12
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
480
Rep
5,352
Posts

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
"... only if there is oil in question or involves Israels existence..." How is this not saying. "the ONLY reasons the US invades countries are Oil/Israel's right to exist?"
Reason: It's sarcasm.

I assume dr325i didnt mean those are the only reasons throughout history. We all know that no country has the same head of state, government, foreign policies, motives etc since the beginning of time. However, at the moment US/UK policies/motives are clearly dirty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
It is not relevant since Saddam ruled Iraq as a dictator. The objective of the invasion was the removal of his regime from power. Iraq was a threat because of his actions.

To take a page from your book, no one said Saddam was the only bad guy.
It is relevant. It isnt revelant...Fine. We have shown that we dont agree. Let the people decide what they want.

The fact is that we were presented LIES LIES LIES about WMD. The case of war wasnt just about him being an evil dictator. No, US/UK government and the media kept spinning us lies about WMD.

About the history, I didnt say that you said Saddam was the only bad guy, but you did give a little sweep of the things Saddam has been part of through history and used it to justify his removal.

You failed, however, to mention other "bad guys"
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-25-2008, 04:09 PM   #13
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,973
Posts

 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
[It is not relevant since Saddam ruled Iraq as a dictator. The objective of the invasion was the removal of his regime from power. Iraq was a threat because of his actions.
The objective was correct, the premisses were -- LIES.
It is proven many times that he was NOT a threat to the USA, the end...

I and the world majority see Bush more as the peace threat than any other dictator alive...
Appreciate 0
      04-25-2008, 04:25 PM   #14
hks786
Major General
United Kingdom
480
Rep
5,352
Posts

 
Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post
The objective was correct, the premisses were -- LIES.
It is proven many times that he was NOT a threat to the USA, the end...

I and the world majority see Bush more as the peace threat than any other dictator alive...
+1

and to lighten up a little, the guy is just plain stupid. Remember the video about Bush on oil prices? DOH!
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-25-2008, 05:13 PM   #15
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hks786 View Post
Reason: It's sarcasm.

I assume dr325i didnt mean those are the only reasons throughout history. We all know that no country has the same head of state, government, foreign policies, motives etc since the beginning of time. However, at the moment US/UK policies/motives are clearly dirty.
No, effective sarcasm has a modicum of truth to it. It is stupidity



Quote:
The fact is that we were presented LIES LIES LIES about WMD. The case of war wasnt just about him being an evil dictator. No, US/UK government and the media kept spinning us lies about WMD.
Did Iraq under Saddam possess WMD? Yes, they used chemical agents against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. They admitted to the UN inspectors to having stores of chemical weapons.

Did Iraq agree to dispose of its WMD under international supervision? Yes, see the terms of the ceasefire as laid out in UNSCR 687.

Did Iraq dispose of the weapons they admitted having under the required international supervision? No

There was someone who lied repeatedly about Iraqi WMD and that was Saddam Hussein. He admitted after his arrest that he intentionally deceived the world into believing he retained stockpiles because he feared the loss of that deterrent against Iran more than he feared the US/UK reaction.

Intelligence organizations were wrong, Saddam's deception was successful. The only lies told were told by Iraq.

Quote:
About the history, I didnt say that you said Saddam was the only bad guy, but you did give a little sweep of the things Saddam has been part of through history and used it to justify his removal.

You failed, however, to mention other "bad guys"
Because his actions DID justify his removal. If we decide to take out any of the other bad guys you seem so concerned with, I will evaluate whether that action was justified by their behavior as well.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      04-25-2008, 09:24 PM   #16
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,973
Posts

 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
No, effective sarcasm has a modicum of truth to it. It is stupidity





Did Iraq under Saddam possess WMD? Yes, they used chemical agents against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. They admitted to the UN inspectors to having stores of chemical weapons.

Did Iraq agree to dispose of its WMD under international supervision? Yes, see the terms of the ceasefire as laid out in UNSCR 687.

Did Iraq dispose of the weapons they admitted having under the required international supervision? No

There was someone who lied repeatedly about Iraqi WMD and that was Saddam Hussein. He admitted after his arrest that he intentionally deceived the world into believing he retained stockpiles because he feared the loss of that deterrent against Iran more than he feared the US/UK reaction.

Intelligence organizations were wrong, Saddam's deception was successful. The only lies told were told by Iraq.



Because his actions DID justify his removal. If we decide to take out any of the other bad guys you seem so concerned with, I will evaluate whether that action was justified by their behavior as well.
DOes the US posses the WMD? Yes.
Did the US use them to kill 250k innocent in an instance (1945)? Yes.
Was it absolutely necessary? No.
Did the US use other WMD in other wars after that? Yes
When? Uranium war heads used in Bosnia and Kosovo (at least)...
Was it proven to affect local population and contaminate land? Yes.
DId the US use UN prohibited weapons in the last 10 years? Yes.
Did the US act against the SC approval to attack the sovereign countries? Yes.
When? Serbia 1999, Iraq 2003.
Was there a clear attack on innocent during these wars? Yes
When? April 19, 1999 -- 20 killed in Belgrade TV station, April 1999 bombing of the train in Kosovo, 200k+ innocend gone in Iraq, Marine murders in Iraq...

So, how is all that going to go unpunished??? WHy is all this allowed? How big is all that compared to 300 concealed rusty and empty old shells that SH did not turn in???

Ridiculous...
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST