Who Supports the War(s)

[Nic Name]

My hard drive crashed and all my background info on the UN is gone.

I wonder if there is a conspiracy between Microsoft and the Department of Disinformation to prevent slang from getting us the dirt on the UN.

[slang]

Originally posted by Nic Name
I wonder if there is a conspiracy between Microsoft and the Department of Disinformation to prevent slang from getting us the dirt on the UN.

I'm on it Nic Name

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Cairo
Hi Hermit22,
Nice to hear from you. You say, "It's not just Saddam, We've been running a full on bombing campaign since 1998." Let's see, how can I put this in the nicest way possible....
It never is the rapist, is it? It's always," Her skirt was too high, her blouse was too low." and "What was she doing out at that hour, she was just asking for it." Pathetic! Like blaming a woman for being raped, or blaming the VanDamm's lifestyle for their daughter's murder...blaming US is totally appalling. It is just Saddam, and everything we have done is reactionary to what he did first.

Next time read what I say, and then post a diatribe. Try to keep it on topic.

I was simply responding to a quote that "the only one who realized the war was still ongoing was Saddam!" You said it, you should remember it. So what did I say? That the war has been ongoing since 1991? That we began Operation Desert Fox in 1998 by dropping bombs on Baghdad? Or some vague reference to the cut on a woman's dress? Maybe you're trying to make some unsubstantial connection between Lewinsky's dress and Desert Fox (both were going on at the same time)?

Most of the world realizes that a limited war has been ongoing for many years. We are shielded from it by the media because, well, frankly, we don't care. There's no drama, so whatever.

[Cairo]

Whatever, indeed....try to comprehend the last line of my post,"It is just Saddam, and everything we have done(Desert Fox,Food for Oil, and No Fly Zone conflicts) is reactionary to what he did first(un-surrendering).
The "diatripe" before that line was to all the "Blame America"(for all the World's woes) wankers
out there...if you are not one of them, it wasn't to you then.

Anyone who thinks an attack on Iraq is a pre-emptive action, doesn't realize that the Gulf War has not ended yet. And well frankly, it's about time we cared.

[slang]

Hey Sycamore,

I'm still gathering evidence of the coming UN takover of the US, but I just came across this rather incriminating photo that <a href="http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/slang324/vwp?.dir=/&.dnm=ASHCROFT-med-2.jpg&.src=bc&.view=l&.done=http%3a//briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/slang324/lst%3f%26.dir=/%26.src=bc%26.view=l">supports my case.</a> It's pretty scary, don't look at it alone.

<TT> Slang disclaimer: This photo is doctored and is only a joke for entertainment puposes only, any resemblence to any government officials (UN or US) is purely comical. If you happen to use this photo in any court of law, media outlet, or social gathering, please understand that I am under no obligation and cannot be held liable if you appear to be delusional . If you agree with this, please click "supports my case" above. If you don't, simply move on to the next post. Thanks.</tt>

[wolf]

Oh my goodness!!

Makes me want to fire up Global Operations and play the terrs in that level with the bluehats ...

[jaguar]

Anyone who thinks an attack on Iraq is a pre-emptive action, doesn't realize

the difference between high and low level conflict.

[Cairo]

jaguar,
Welcome back! I missed you.
You are right, anyone who thinks an attack on Iraq is a pre-emptive action, doesn't realize that high and low levels of conflict have been ongoing and the Gulf War has not ended.

[tw]

Originally posted by Cairo
Anyone who thinks an attack on Iraq is a pre-emptive action, doesn't realize that the Gulf War has not ended yet. And well frankly, it's about time we cared.

The Iraqi situation is what happens when politicians don't plan, in advance, for the upcoming surrender. Learn about what Yalta, et al were all about - why they were so important to ending that war. Why such planning was so important in keeping the mistakes of WWI from being repeated.

Had those in power in 1990 decided to remove Saddam as a condition of surrender, we would not have been in this position. Clearly Saddam was a candidate for crime against humanity in The Hague. However senior George Sr admininstration political types made Saddam's surrender conditions so pathetic that things like the no-fly-zone were appended to the surrender AFTER the surrender agreement was signed. Had those American political types done their job in 1991, none of this morass would exist.

Before you go about solving problems by dropping nuclear bombs, first learn how we got here in the first place. George Sr administration screwed up. George Sr himself suspected something wrong in a news conference where he said he just did not feel we had accomplished everything and was not comfortable celebrating so early. George Sr was correct. His adminstration let Saddam off the hook and even made it almost impossible for the UN inspectors to find all those weapons of mass destruction.

Bin Laden's attacks on the world are directly traceable to the fact that we said we would leave the Gulf after war was over. We lied. One need not agree with bin Laden's actions to still understand reasons for his actions. We lied. We did not leave the Gulf. We remain in a continuing skirmish with Saddam because we agreed to these, what are now unacceptable, surrender conditions.

Based upon the conditions we agreed to, an attack on Saddam requires new UN approval. There is no way around that fact - which even right wing extremists in the administration conceded to. Yes Cairo. An attack on Saddam is not justified by any 1990 UN resolutions. Even senior officials of the George Jr administration concede that point.

Saddam conformed to the original surrender conditions. To attack Saddam, a smoking gun is first required. That is exactly what the recent UN resolution demands. That necessary smoking gun is why Germany, Mexico, Syria, China, and France all agreed to the new resolution. A smoking gun must be produced before any attack on Iraq can be initiated. That is fact. That was fundamental to the UN resolution. That is what those who honor rules of law appreciate. That is what you outrightly ignore in your opinions. You ignore that a smoking gun must be presented before any attack can even be considered. Welcome, again, to reality.

[jaguar]

I was going to explain the concept of a ladder of conflict, with neat little examples to try and get it though Cairo's thick head. But simpsons reruns were on and well, time is valauble.

[elSicomoro]

What's a "think head?" I know that some people use their heads to think, but I've never heard of a "think head."

[Cairo]

Wrong again! And the lengths to which you will stoop to enable Saddam are frightening, BTW!!!!
Conditions of surrender are conditions of surrender, regardless of "planning"...you break it, you buy it. One such condition was to conform to the 16 UN Resolutions he broke. Since removing Saddam in 1990 was not our mission, doing so would have caused what Saddam threatens will happen now with the Arab street. Our mission in 1990 was to stop Saddam's greedy oil grubbing, so he couldn't blackmail and hold hostage America's interests. Mission accomplished! Bush 41 beat back Saddam and reduced him to a pile of quivering blubber, crying to save his rear! Colin Powell advised Bush 41 that ousting Saddam would hurt Arab Relations, and assured Bush 41 that Saddam's replacement would be much worse than a beaten-down compliant Saddam. So, if ya want to lay blame on how we got here....Powell and giving peace a chance are the culprits!!!!!

Who's trying to solve problems by dropping nuclear bombs? Oh, right...Saddam is!!!!
We said we would leave the Gulf after the war was over??? First of all, the Gulf war isn't over! And second, Saudi Arabia won't let our troops leave, seems they are afraid of being overthrown by bin Laden's terrorist network, and the Royals begged the UN to install US there in the first place!(Learn a little History, dude.) So "your truth" is false, the fact is, Saddam said he surrendered...HE LIED!
In wartime, we don't need to P-foot around with Diplomacy, no need to ask permission to defend our Country in a 10+ year ongoing war, no need for a "smoking gun"...the "smoking gun" is the fact that the Gulf war has no ending!
All this PC crap going on right now is un-necessary and a waste of time, which Saddam loves I'm sure!
Saddam ignores fundamental UN Resolutions...
Saddam ignores the Rules of Law...
In Kuwait and to the Kurds, Saddam ignores the fact that a "smoking gun" must be presented before any attack can even be considered...
Sure would be nice if you would apply the same standards and barriers to Saddam that you expect of me!!!!! Reality is lost on you! Reality is, in any fight, if our side is bound by rules, and the other side is not...our side loses everytime!

[Cairo]

Yes, "think head" was right!....*sigh* Using my brain to think, instead of a spacer to hold my ears apart(Jaguar), does have set backs. I can't be brainwashed and live in ignorant bliss...like tw does. LOL.....

[slang]

Nice post Cairo, a little too short but nice.

PS I need a freakin staff to keep up with all these posts!


And another thing dammit. I'm sick of reading the phrase smoking gun! Enough already! Christ!!

[Cairo]

Why thank you so much, slang...you did notice that I was being "nice". So unlike me, I think I'm coming down with something, maybe?

Although...It comes as no surprise to me that this
idiot can not figure out the situation with Iraq,
because he can't even figure out how to address
Bush 41 and Bush 43!!!!!

LOL....I'm Baaaaack!