Next excuse on the Price was Right?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 9 2004, 02:33 AM
Where are the 17 UN security council resolutions against Iran and North Korea that have been violated?

So now we're forgetting the 'bad guy' theory and the new rationale is that Saddam broke 17 Security Council violations, and that's the real reason the US UK (and Poland) invaded. I can get that. Though it seems that there must be numerous UN resolutions codemning state-sponsored terrorism and I'm sure if one dug hard enough they could find evidence that Iran sponsored terrorists. Thus, if Iran has 'violated' that UN resolution (and I can find one if you want) it deserves to be invaded.

So again, by your logic, shouldn't you be clamoring(sp?) to have Iran (at least) and North Korea invaded. I'm sure NK has violated agreements made with the IAEA at the very least.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 9 2004, 02:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 9 2004, 02:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 9 2004, 02:33 AM
Where are the 17 UN security council resolutions against Iran and North Korea that have been violated?

So now we're forgetting the 'bad guy' theory and the new rationale is that Saddam broke 17 Security Council violations, and that's the real reason the US UK (and Poland) invaded. I can get that. Though it seems that there must be numerous UN resolutions codemning state-sponsored terrorism and I'm sure if one dug hard enough they could find evidence that Iran sponsored terrorists. Thus, if Iran has 'violated' that UN resolution (and I can find one if you want) it deserves to be invaded.

So again, by your logic, shouldn't you be clamoring(sp?) to have Iran (at least) and North Korea invaded. I'm sure NK has violated agreements made with the IAEA at the very least. [/b][/quote]
It never was the bad guy theory, so I'm not forgetting anything. I'm simply telling you why (and sticking my neck out here, because it's clear I'm an easy and popular target) I feel the invasion was justified. My reasons have not changed since day 1.

As for Iran, they've been put on notice and the international community should begin to apply pressure as they did on Iraq for over 10 years.

Each similar nation's leadership is different and should be dealt with on a case by case basis. You can't take sweeping action just because the logic fits. In my opinion, Saddam Hussein was dealt with in the appropriate manner. It may not be necessary to do the same thing in Iran, though their sponsorship of terrorism has to be dealt with in some manner, and it could eventually come to that.

Let's keep in mind though, Iran hasn't attacked anyone.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 8 2004, 08:23 PM
That's my point Roos....my reasons haven't changed.

The facts still remain....

Saddam had in his posession post '91 WMD (I hate the phrase).
He used them prior to that time.
They were documented post Gulf War.
He was mandated by the UN to destory them and to do so in an accountable manner.
He did not.
He ignored/laughed at/disrespected 17 UN resolutions and a cease fire agreement.

He had illegal missiles capable of reaching Israel...those were found early on. No nasty warheads, though.

It was reasonable to assume that he had them still and that they could be used to attack his neighbors or pawned off to terrorists.

Hussein supported terrorism.

He paid families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

He gave refuge to Abu Nidal.

He gave refuge and medical treatment to Al-Zarqawi, who is associated with Al-Qaeda.

Still going with facts here.....

I have NEVER said there was a link between Hussein and 9-11.
I have NEVER said there was a link between Hussein and Bin-Laden.
I have ONLY said (in this area) that it was not unlikely that sharing a common enemy would unite them at some point in the future in some way.

Do you have a serious problem with any of these facts? If you don't, then it comes down to you and I having different views on what justifies a madman's removal from power. I find the above pretty compelling whether WMD's were found or not.

As for your last paragraph, if you'll read my earlier post you might find that I beat you to that punch.

Bla bla bla bla bla

The reasons your government gave for the war were wrong. They've admitted it. If you want to start a little list of all the transgressions after the fact that you believe still justify a full-scale invasion on the other side of the world that your tax dollars are going to support for the next 20 years then go nuts.

I gotta admit, you are loyal. George, Rummy and Condi are all trying to abandon this ship, but you are still in there bailing like hell.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 9 2004, 03:03 AM

Bla bla bla bla bla

The reasons your government gave for the war were wrong. They've admitted it. If you want to start a little list of all the transgressions after the fact that you believe still justify a full-scale invasion on the other side of the world that your tax dollars are going to support for the next 20 years then go nuts.

I gotta admit, you are loyal. George, Rummy and Condi are all trying to abandon this ship, but you are still in there bailing like hell.

Wow, didn't expect that.

What exactly in my post set you off? That's my honest opinion Roos....I'm not loyal to anything or anyone but myself.

Can't you read the post and come to that conclusion even though we certainly disagree?

Would you have more respect for me if I was changing my tune in desparation like the people you accused me of being loyal too?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 8 2004, 09:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 8 2004, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 9 2004, 03:03 AM

Bla bla bla bla bla

The reasons your government gave for the war were wrong. They've admitted it. If you want to start a little list of all the transgressions after the fact that you believe still justify a full-scale invasion on the other side of the world that your tax dollars are going to support for the next 20 years then go nuts.

I gotta admit, you are loyal. George, Rummy and Condi are all trying to abandon this ship, but you are still in there bailing like hell.

Wow, didn't expect that.

What exactly in my post set you off? That's my honest opinion Roos....I'm not loyal to anything or anyone but myself.

Can't you read the post and come to that conclusion even though we certainly disagree?

Would you have more respect for me if I was changing my tune in desparation like the people you accused me of being loyal too? [/b][/quote]
Ha ha sorry I didn't mean to come across as so aggressive. I had actually typed out a laundry list trying to cover each of your points but I can't stand the tedium of all the [Quote.../Q...] crap (actually I'm just too stupid to get it all correct) so I erased it and just tapped out a quick reply.

My point was, all the things you listed, right or wrong, were not used as justification. If you believe them to be justification then well I just don't agree with you.

It's not about more respect or changing your tune. I don't think there is anything wrong admitting when mistakes were made (as Bush/Rummy/Rice have). Like you said, you have your opinion/beliefs and you are sticking to them. I can appreciate that. I just think you are wrong. :angry:

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 8 2004, 08:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 8 2004, 08:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-KootenayFlamesFan@Oct 9 2004, 12:34 AM


Do these people really want the best person running their country, or just the most religious?

I would say they think the most religious person is the best person. I'm not arguing that they are right.

I'd bet you there are SOME Canadians who have the exact same criterion for their preferred leadership.

Does that blow you away?

I guess I don't get why you are blown away. [/b][/quote]
I would say they think the most religious person is the best person. I'm not arguing that they are right.

Fair enough............I wouldn't agree with those people, but fair enough.

I'd bet you there are SOME Canadians who have the exact same criterion for their preferred leadership.

You may be right. Doesn't mean I agree with them just because they're Canadian.


Does that blow you away?

It would, yes.


I guess I don't get why you are blown away.

Guess not.........IMO, I just can't fathom voting for someone based on solely on religious beliefs. I don't care if you're Christian, Catholic, Islamic, whatever.......I would personally vote for the best candidate..............period.

Man, glad I'm not religious.............

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Fire+Oct 7 2004, 07:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Fire @ Oct 7 2004, 07:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 7 2004, 07:39 PM
Come on down!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._iraq_weapons_2

The Bush Administration OFFICIALLY has no credability left. NONE. If these guys get re-elected it speaks volumes of the stupidity of the average American. How can an Administration caught in so many lies and still be in the race for the presidency? Has America any morals left?

If Canadians can vote the Liberals in I won't be surprised if Bush gets re-elected. [/b][/quote]
Amen to that.

It never fails to amaze me how Canadians will get so worked up about what's south of the border, and completely ignore all the nonsense in our own back yard.

[Flame On]

Would you have more respect for me if I was changing my tune in desparation like the people you accused me of being loyal too?
It's a shame that people seem to have been successfully convinced that it's wrong to consider the facts, and then react accordingly to them. Good thing your leaders didn't do that in the 70's or America would still be losing the Vietnam war.
I would respect you more if you were able to think "gee, they have made some blunders, even though they keep telling us they haven't. There may be another way and could Kerry do worse?" To me the answer to that is certainly no.
I'm far more liberally minded than right wing, but I think I'd vote cons in if there were this many blunders in Canada (that's another story if you think they have). I didn't i n fact vote liberal this time....or Con.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 9 2004, 03:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 9 2004, 03:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 9 2004, 03:03 AM

Bla bla bla bla bla

The reasons your government gave for the war were wrong. They've admitted it. If you want to start a little list of all the transgressions after the fact that you believe still justify a full-scale invasion on the other side of the world that your tax dollars are going to support for the next 20 years then go nuts.

I gotta admit, you are loyal. George, Rummy and Condi are all trying to abandon this ship, but you are still in there bailing like hell.

Wow, didn't expect that.

What exactly in my post set you off? That's my honest opinion Roos....I'm not loyal to anything or anyone but myself.

Can't you read the post and come to that conclusion even though we certainly disagree?

Would you have more respect for me if I was changing my tune in desparation like the people you accused me of being loyal too? [/b][/quote]
Dis your backtracking has been as bad as the Bush Administrations, I have to agree with Rouge here.

You cannot continue to keep coming up with Justifactions for the Iraq war.

Seriously the reason the UN Oil for food program was even brought up this week was to try to justify the war in Iraq.

NEVER have you ever sited that as a reason for going to war and now you are coming to the defense of the administration saying ooo its a big part now.

The Doefur report also discredits the link between Al-Zarqawi Saddam, instead saying him and his friends came in AFTER the war started. IN fact the War has brought more terrorists to Iraq to help fight the US than were there in the first place? Next you are going to be telling me this was planned all along and they are trying to lure the terrorists to Iraq in order to lay a trap for them and kill them.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Oct 9 2004, 07:30 PM
The Doefur report also discredits the link between Al-Zarqawi Saddam, instead saying him and his friends came in AFTER the war started. IN fact the War has brought more terrorists to Iraq to help fight the US than were there in the first place? Next you are going to be telling me this was planned all along and they are trying to lure the terrorists to Iraq in order to lay a trap for them and kill them.

Yeah but don't question them what ever you do or you're a flip flopper, or deperate!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by KootenayFlamesFan+Oct 9 2004, 02:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KootenayFlamesFan @ Oct 9 2004, 02:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I would say they think the most religious person is the best person. I'm not arguing that they are right.

I'd bet you there are SOME Canadians who have the exact same criterion for their preferred leadership.

Does that blow you away?

I guess I don't get why you are blown away.

I would say they think the most religious person is the best person. I'm not arguing that they are right.

Fair enough............I wouldn't agree with those people, but fair enough.

I'd bet you there are SOME Canadians who have the exact same criterion for their preferred leadership.

You may be right. Doesn't mean I agree with them just because they're Canadian.


Does that blow you away?

It would, yes.


I guess I don't get why you are blown away.

Guess not.........IMO, I just can't fathom voting for someone based on solely on religious beliefs. I don't care if you're Christian, Catholic, Islamic, whatever.......I would personally vote for the best candidate..............period.

Man, glad I'm not religious............. [/b][/quote]
So you're just shocked that people like this exist. That's the part I don't understand.

BTW...not all religious people fall into the category that blows you away. So if you were religious you wouldn't necessarily want the most religious leadership.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Oct 9 2004, 07:30 PM

Dis your backtracking has been as bad as the Bush Administrations, I have to agree with Rouge here.

You cannot continue to keep coming up with Justifactions for the Iraq war.

Seriously the reason the UN Oil for food program was even brought up this week was to try to justify the war in Iraq.

NEVER have you ever sited that as a reason for going to war and now you are coming to the defense of the administration saying ooo its a big part now.

The Doefur report also discredits the link between Al-Zarqawi Saddam, instead saying him and his friends came in AFTER the war started. IN fact the War has brought more terrorists to Iraq to help fight the US than were there in the first place? Next you are going to be telling me this was planned all along and they are trying to lure the terrorists to Iraq in order to lay a trap for them and kill them.

Wow, it's amazing how you guys continue to misinterpret what I said. I didn't say that the Oil for Food program was a rationale for the administration to go to war. I said it was one of the reasons that the war happened. They are two very different things and I'm getting hammered for the one I did not say.

I haven't backtracked....EVER.