SkydiveMonkey 0 #76 March 21, 2003 Should have slotted him there and then. I know at least one sniper had the chance.____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #77 March 21, 2003 QuoteWeren't you the person trying to draw lines throughout history to predict the fall of the US due to its current policies? I'm doing the same thing. Why the change? Is it because it doesn't support your arguement? Nope, like you did not see the similarity between your list of fallen nations and the US, I do not see the link between your argument and the current situation (Saddam and Hitler or other tirants). Hence we can just disagree, without you trying to scold me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #78 March 21, 2003 I thought you were championing the UN. Why the sudden change, since the UN was assuring the US that they could handle Saddam. You're being quite hypocritical now.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #79 March 21, 2003 No change in stance at all, but it should have happened. not as if they weren't trying ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDolphin 0 #80 March 21, 2003 OK so the really important thing here is, like it or not, there is a war right now and many many soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are there. We all probably know at least one person who is there. So instead of bickering over what is right and what is wrong, why don't we all concentrate on sending good vibes and prayers to those who are there. Pray for their safe return and pray for a minimum of loss of life on both sides. Let's show our support and love for the troops even if we don't agree with the reason they are there. As for me, I have a 6 foot inflatable light up American Flag in my front yard that will stay there, lit up until this thing is over. Just my 2 cents. Rhonda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #81 March 21, 2003 The difference, though, is that the first historical discussion we had, hinged on interpretting current US policy. The point I raised about the LoN and the UN is historical fact, since they both are in the past. Resolution 1441 was passed over 10 years ago and the UN was unwilling to act upon it.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #82 March 21, 2003 QuoteShould have slotted him there and then. I know at least one sniper had the chance. In hindsight, Skydive Monkey is right. Would've saved a lot of trouble later on. Of course, we would have been acting unilaterally then, outside of what the UN had agreed upon. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #83 March 21, 2003 While I don't agree with us being there, i do hope everyone makes it back ok in one piece.____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #84 March 21, 2003 1441 was passed 10 years ago? I thought it was passed last fall? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #86 March 21, 2003 The Saudi's asked us not to do it.. Blame them... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #87 March 21, 2003 Quote 1441 was passed 10 years ago? I thought it was passed last fall? D'oh, you're right... I'm now trying to rack my brain and remember the resolution number that I was originally thinking of... I guess I'm allowed a mistake after quoting a lot of facts, huh?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #88 March 21, 2003 Ok, I had to actually go look this up (stupid brain fart). It was resolution 660, 678 and 687 that I was thinking of. As well as 686 and 688. --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #89 March 21, 2003 Quote The point I raised about the LoN and the UN is historical fact, since they both are in the past. Resolution 1441 was passed over 10 years ago and the UN was unwilling to act upon it. I know you meant a different resolution number, so I wont get into that Whether or not the UN was willing to uphold those resolutions (including 1441 this past Fall), is up for debate as well. I think it is fair to say that it wasn't going fast enough for the US' liking, but the UN was certainly following those resolutions. Certainly far more than the LoN did to uphold theirs. Hence, IMHO it is still not a valid comparison. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #90 March 21, 2003 QuoteIMHO it is still not a valid comparison Alright, well, if you don't see it, then you don't see it. Personally, I see it as proof of the cyclictic nature of history.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #91 March 21, 2003 QuoteI see it as proof of the cyclictic nature of history. LOL, we agree on the same thing, the cyclictic nature of history. You see it as a strong case for the war. I see it as what could possibly lead us down a terrible road. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #92 March 21, 2003 Quote You see it as a strong case for the war. I see it as what could possibly lead us down a terrible road. That's why there's more then one version of history. --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #93 March 21, 2003 Quote Quote The point I raised about the LoN and the UN is historical fact, since they both are in the past. Resolution 1441 was passed over 10 years ago and the UN was unwilling to act upon it. I know you meant a different resolution number, so I wont get into that Whether or not the UN was willing to uphold those resolutions (including 1441 this past Fall), is up for debate as well. I think it is fair to say that it wasn't going fast enough for the US' liking, but the UN was certainly following those resolutions. Certainly far more than the LoN did to uphold theirs. Hence, IMHO it is still not a valid comparison. And then there's UN Resolutions 242 and 1402 to think about.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #94 March 21, 2003 Quote That's why there's more then one version of history. very true. Damn did we just end a discussion without getting into name calling and walking away from the computer mad....... I think we should get a ribbon or something Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #95 March 21, 2003 "Whether or not the UN was willing to uphold those resolutions (including 1441 this past Fall), is up for debate as well. " IMHO what is 'up for debate' is the definition of the term 'serious consequences'. Had there been a vote or a second resolution then the legality of our current situation might have been a little clearer. However France banjaxed this option, and left the coalition in a legal limbo.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #96 March 21, 2003 QuoteHad there been a vote or a second resolution then the legality of our current situation might have been a little clearer. I agree, though the US decided not to put it to a vote, so we really will never know the outcome of that possibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #97 March 21, 2003 QuoteQuoteIMHO it is still not a valid comparison Alright, well, if you don't see it, then you don't see it. Personally, I see it as proof of the cyclictic nature of history. "Cyclictic"? Does that come from the same Texan dictionary as "nucular"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #98 March 21, 2003 Quote And then there's UN Resolutions 242 and 1402 to think about. Sort of proves the UN's ineffectiveness doesn't it. Although it does show our (the US's) defiance, although many would argue for the good of some people, especially after over 6,000,000 of them died due to the inadequaces of the LoN, the UN's predicessor. Next question, how many of yall had to go look those up? --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #99 March 21, 2003 QuoteThe question for me has never been if Saddam is a bad man, the question is how the western world is dealing with it. the question for me is why it took 12 years to enforce what it said. (The UN) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #100 March 21, 2003 Quote Cyclictic"? Does that come from the same Texan dictionary as "nucular"? Its nUkler, get it right! Give me a break here, I'm allowed a few mistakes in grammer and spelling (even if it is a made up word), I've pulled a lot of historical data out of my ass, that was factual.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
