Page 1 of 2

Another Days useless energy spent

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:13 pm
by Mister Bushice
"Possible Further Action"? I suppose that means waving their plastic swords in the air and shouting out empty threats?

What a useless endeavor the UN is.
U.N. Security Council OKs Syria Resolution

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS - The
U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Monday demanding
Syria's full cooperation with a U.N. investigation into the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister and warning of possible "further action" if it doesn't.

The United States, France and Britain pressed for the resolution following last week's tough report by the U.N. investigating commission, which implicated top Syrian and Lebanese security officials in the Feb. 14 bombing that killed Rafik Hariri and 20 others. The report also accused Syria of not cooperating fully with the inquiry.

The three co-sponsors agreed to drop a direct threat of sanctions against Syria in order to get support from Russia and China, which opposed sanctions while the investigation is still under way. Nonetheless, the resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which is militarily enforceable.

The resolution requires Syria to detain anyone the U.N. investigators consider a suspect and let investigators determine the location and conditions under which the individual would be questioned. It also would freeze assets and impose a travel ban on anyone identified as a suspect by the commission.
Those provisions could pose a problem for Syrian President Bashar Assad, as well as his brother, Maher Assad, and his brother-in-law, Assef Shawkat, the chief of military intelligence. The Syrian leader has refused a request from the chief U.N. investigator to be interviewed. Investigators also want to question his brother and brother-in-law.

The U.S. invited foreign ministers of the 15 Security Council nations to attend the meeting to send a strong message to Syria to cooperate with the inquiry, and a dozen ministers showed up, including Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and ministers from Russia, China, Britain and France.

Rice told the council that Syria had been put on notice by the international community that it must cooperate with the inquiry by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis.

"With our decision today, we show that Syria has isolated itself from the international community — through its false statements, its support for terrorism, its interference in the affairs of its neighbors, and its destabilizing behavior in the Middle East," Rice said. "Now, the Syrian government must make a strategic decision to fundamentally change its behavior."

"The Chapter VII resolution that we are passing today is the only way to compel the Syrian government to accept the just demands of the
United Nations and to cooperate fully with the Mehlis investigation," she said.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the Security Council is "putting the government of Syria on notice that our patience has limits."

"The people of the Lebanon have become all too acquainted with grief," he said. "We owe them a better future, and this resolution is one way of providing them with that better future."

France's Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy stressed that the resolution has one aim: "the truth, the whole truth about Rafik Hariri's assassination in order that those responsible for it answer for their crime."

By adopting the resolution, he said, the council showed solidarity with Lebanon, support for the Mehlis commission's work which has been extended until Dec. 15, and demanded "firm and urgent cooperation" from Syria.

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa, who flew to New York to attend the council meeting, listened to minister after minister demand his government's cooperation. Several noted Damascus' recent promises to cooperate.

Assad on Saturday ordered that a judicial committee be formed to investigate Hariri's assassination. A presidential decree said the committee will cooperate with the U.N. probe and Lebanese judicial authorities.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, whose country has large Lebanese and Syrian communities, made clear that any further action against Syria would require Security Council approval.

"Brazil will not favor hasty decisions that may lead to an undesirable escalation of the situation or further endanger the stability of the region," he said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the resolution was useful because it showed the council's determination to discover the truth behind Hariri's assassination. "The final text of the resolution, of course, is not ideal," he said.

Russia said last week it opposed sanctions against Syria, its longtime ally. Late Sunday, Lavrov criticized what he described as attempts to turn the Security Council into an investigative body, in comments broadcast by Russia's Channel One television.

Although the final text dropped the threat of sanctions, it said if Syria doesn't cooperate "the council, if necessary, could consider further action." That could, ultimately, include sanctions.

In another concession to try to get Russia and China on board, the co-sponsors also agreed to drop an appeal to Syria to renounce all support "for all forms of terrorist action and all assistance to terrorist groups."

The final negotiations on the text began Sunday night at a dinner hosted by Rice for the foreign ministers of the four other permanent council nations — Lavrov, Straw, China's Li Zhaoxing and France's Philippe Douste-Blazy. The talks resumed early Monday, and then the entire council met behind closed doors.

Syria, meanwhile, is pushing for an emergency Arab League summit to try to rally regional support, said Arab diplomats speaking on condition of anonymity because the request had not been officially made.

The diplomats, speaking at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo, suggested a smaller gathering of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Lebanon and Egypt might be organized should other countries decline to participate out of concern over harming ties with the U.S., France and Britain.

The diplomats said Syrian Secretary-General Amr Moussa sent a special envoy to Gulf countries informing them of the Syrian request. They said Syria hoped for the meeting later this week, after the end of the Muslim religious month of Ramadan.

The Syrian media criticized the U.N. resolution before the vote Monday, with the English-language Syria Times saying it was "openly politicized" and too heavily influenced by the U.S.

"It's immoral and totally unacceptable that the will of the (international) community remains captive to a unilateral diktat and ... accepts tyranny and hegemony," the paper said.

Syria's official news agency, SANA, said Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Walid Moallem toured Gulf countries this past weekend bearing a message from the Syrian president concerning "the dangers Syria faces" as a result of the U.N. action.

SANA quoted Moallem as saying the resolution was "dangerous" and aimed at hurting Syria, not uncovering the truth in the Hariri assassination. But Moallem said that Syria will "continue to cooperate" with the U.N. investigation despite "legal and political gaps in its report."

While Syria has rejected accusations of its involvement in Hariri's killing, it buckled under international pressure and withdrew its soldiers from Lebanon in April, ending a 29-year presence in its smaller neighbor.

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:21 pm
by Tom In VA
All "Comfy Chair/Inquisition" resets get RACKED.

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:28 pm
by Bizzarofelice
Anything the UN does against Syria will amount to the same devastation as the comfy pillows.

Good call, mvscal, and rack.

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:49 pm
by DrDetroit
And to think that the Democrats prefer that the UN be determining whether the US uses its military.

How many times does the UN have to fail before the Democrats stop demanding that the US turn its sovereignty to it?

I'm seriously curious about this...

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:21 pm
by DrDetroit
And to think that the Democrats demand that the UN determine when the US might use its military.

Though, that fits right in with their perception of foreign policy: fondle the enemy and hope they don't spit in your eye.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:25 pm
by BSmack
Doncha love it when Detard starts talking to himself?

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:38 pm
by DrDetroit
ignore it all you want, but it's an accurate description of you people.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:00 pm
by Mister Bushice
mvscal wrote:Predictably, the Syrians have told the UN to eat a dick.
Syria rejects U.N. resolution
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; Posted: 4:39 a.m. EST (09:39 GMT)

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Syria has angrily rejected a U.N. Security Council resolution that demands Damascus cooperate fully in the investigation into the killing of Lebanon's former prime minister Rafik Hariri or face "further measures."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/ ... index.html
Well Mr. Assad that's it, you leave us no alternative but to issue a memo expressing serious concerns. Failing that...we will be forced to have a luncheon meeting to discuss additional memos.

May God have mercy on your soul.
And furthermore, If you continue to resist, we will issue several more resolutions, each one more tersely worded than the last.

Consider yourself warned.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:02 pm
by Mikey
Fucking Democrats. They're all the same.
Really, they need to be shot on sight.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:03 pm
by DrDetroit
Mister Bushice wrote:And furthermore, If you continue to resist, we will issue several more resolutions, each one more tersely worded than the last.

Consider yourself warned.
This pattern has been repeated so many times...I wonder why you Democrats keep demanding that we engage in it?

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:03 pm
by DrDetroit
Mikey wrote:Fucking Democrats. They're all the same.
Really, they need to be shot on sight.
It's your party...if it does not speak for you, you should abandon it.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:08 pm
by BSmack
DrDetroit wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:And furthermore, If you continue to resist, we will issue several more resolutions, each one more tersely worded than the last.

Consider yourself warned.
This pattern has been repeated so many times...I wonder why you Democrats keep demanding that we engage in it?
Nobody is arguing that the UN is perfect. But if you wish to complain, can you offer an alternative more preferable?

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:16 pm
by DrDetroit
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:And furthermore, If you continue to resist, we will issue several more resolutions, each one more tersely worded than the last.

Consider yourself warned.
This pattern has been repeated so many times...I wonder why you Democrats keep demanding that we engage in it?
Nobody is arguing that the UN is perfect. But if you wish to complain, can you offer an alternative more preferable?
No one argued that others were arguing that the UN was/is perfect, 'tard.

An alternative? How about nothing? What value does the UN serve that couldn't be accomplished (probably more efficiently and effectively) by separating out as independent organizations (e.g., WHO, WTO, etc.)?

How long must we continue to watch the UN ignore its own mandates and miserably fail at literally every endeavor it can ever get around to actually doing?

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:11 pm
by Variable
Nobody is arguing that the UN is perfect. But if you wish to complain, can you offer an alternative more preferable?
Point being, we all know that the UN is retarded, but not only is consulting them before engaging in any sort of action an exercise in futility, but it legitimizes the body in its current state. At this point the only way to reform the UN is to threaten it with irrelevancy by simply ignoring it.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:36 pm
by Mister Bushice
DrDetroit wrote:
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote: This pattern has been repeated so many times...I wonder why you Democrats keep demanding that we engage in it?
Nobody is arguing that the UN is perfect. But if you wish to complain, can you offer an alternative more preferable?
No one argued that others were arguing that the UN was/is perfect, 'tard.
You've been making claims throughout this thread that "WE" Support the UN. I don't see a single poster here making that claim. I don't know if I've ever read a post where someone supports the UN.
An alternative? How about nothing? What value does the UN serve that couldn't be accomplished (probably more efficiently and effectively) by separating out as independent organizations (e.g., WHO, WTO, etc.)?
You're preaching to the choir.
How long must we continue to watch the UN ignore its own mandates and miserably fail at literally every endeavor it can ever get around to actually doing?
For as long as every country involved thinks it has viability. It doesn't, but even the Bush Administration uses the UN as a foil to do what he wants, just like everyone else does.

Hell, the UN occupies PRIME real estate in NY that Trump tried unsuccessfully to get converted to a profitable commercial entity, but the politicians did not listen to him.

Maybe we should have elected people who feel the way we do?

There's a start.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:57 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:
Variable wrote:At this point the only way to reform the UN is to threaten it with irrelevancy by simply ignoring it.
You will never "reform" the UN. It is an inherently flawed concept that will never work under any conditions.
I'd love to see the proof for that. Have you tested every known condition? How about the unknown ones?

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:19 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote: You will never "reform" the UN. It is an inherently flawed concept that will never work under any conditions.
I'd love to see the proof for that.
The proof is in the pudding and there is over fifty years of it not to mention the equally comical abortion called the League of Nations.
But you said "will never work under ANY conditions".

Care to back away from that?

Like any confederation, the UN is only as strong as the loyalty of its member nations to its mission. The United States of America is all the proof you need to know that member states with disparate needs and goals can be united in a common cause.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:45 pm
by Mister Bushice
It obviously fails at resolution of conflicts.

It also fails at financial management without corruption.

It is too afraid to send UN troops and staff members into areas of the world where there is unrest and violence, despite the fact that the whole purpose of sending them is to help assist in quelling said unrest and violence.

Not all of the worlds governments / nations are represented.

Maybe they could organize ice cream socials and bake sales? No resolutions would be needed, the financial reward is low enough to eliminate the possibility of corruption (pot brownies excluded), the risk of violence would be low, they could pick and choose what countries to do it in.

See? There is still hope that we can find a use for the UN. :)

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:49 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:But you said "will never work under ANY conditions".

Care to back away from that?
That's right and no, I don't.
Like any confederation, the UN is only as strong as the loyalty of its member nations to its mission. The United States of America is all the proof you need to know that member states with disparate needs and goals can be united in a common cause.
What common cause? The flaw is that no responsible nation will ever voluntarily act against it's own perceived interests.

The UN is simply unnecessary. Diplomacy had managed just fine without it for thousands of years. It's what ambassadors are for.
There is no argument against the UN that one couldn't have made against reforming the Articles of Confederation. And that includes the argument that no responsible state will act against it's own percieved self interest.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:57 pm
by Mister Bushice
mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:It is too afraid to send UN troops
There are no UN troops.
OK, UN sponsored Peacekeepers or whatever terminology you would like to label them with.

Don't get anal. The point is that they won't send UN sponsored support into highly volatile areas.

That also includes UN staffers and any other emergency assistance.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:06 pm
by DrDetroit
Mister Bushice wrote:You've been making claims throughout this thread that "WE" Support the UN. I don't see a single poster here making that claim. I don't know if I've ever read a post where someone supports the UN.
Don't play coy, bitch. You, among several others here, have condemned this war for not having UN approval.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:09 pm
by DrDetroit
Mister Bushice wrote:It is too afraid to send UN troops and staff members into areas of the world where there is unrest and violence, despite the fact that the whole purpose of sending them is to help assist in quelling said unrest and violence.
It's not a matter of fear, but one of corruption. It's the reason why the UN does nothing about terrorism...many of the members support terrorism so long as its directed against the West.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:12 pm
by Mister Bushice
DrDetroit wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:You've been making claims throughout this thread that "WE" Support the UN. I don't see a single poster here making that claim. I don't know if I've ever read a post where someone supports the UN.
Don't play coy, bitch. You, among several others here, have condemned this war for not having UN approval.
No, I condemned the war for not having international support. That's different than having UN support. Obviously after a ba zillion unenforced resolutions they meant nothing, but that didn't give Bush Carte Blanche to invade on his own.

And don't give me that crap that we had international support. When you can show me equivalent numbers of troops or money, I'll believe it.

I condemned Bush for going into Iraq essentially alone for the exact reasons we are bogged down there now. I supported the ousting of Saddam, but not the way it was done.

And besides, you were said "we", as in more than one person supported the UNs actions. Prove that.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:19 pm
by DrDetroit
Bushice:
No, I condemned the war for not having international support. That's different than having UN support.
Bullshit...
And don't give me that crap that we had international support. When you can show me equivalent numbers of troops or money, I'll believe it.
Then your demand for international support will never be satisfied, dumbass.

Besides, the real argument behind the cndemnation for a lack of international support was that France, Germany, and Russia were not on board.
I condemned Bush for going into Iraq essentially alone for the exact reasons we are bogged down there now. I supported the ousting of Saddam, but not the way it was done.


"Going it alone?" Sorry, try again.

Nonetheless, how the fuck else do you think Bush should have pursued ousting Saddam?
And besides, you were said "we", as in more than one person supported the UNs actions. Prove that.
I didn't say that.

I did state that you people supported handing away US sovereignty to the UN. You voted for a candidate who advocated precisely that.

There, I proved my point. Now stfu.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:30 pm
by Mister Bushice
DrDetroit wrote:Bushice:
No, I condemned the war for not having international support. That's different than having UN support.
Bullshit...
Nope.
And don't give me that crap that we had international support. When you can show me equivalent numbers of troops or money, I'll believe it.
Then your demand for international support will never be satisfied, dumbass.

Besides, the real argument behind the cndemnation for a lack of international support was that France, Germany, and Russia were not on board.
No shit. That fact didn't make the invasion a worthwhile venture. 300 billion dollars in and we have more troops now there than at any time in the past.
I condemned Bush for going into Iraq essentially alone for the exact reasons we are bogged down there now. I supported the ousting of Saddam, but not the way it was done.


"Going it alone?" Sorry, try again.

Nonetheless, how the fuck else do you think Bush should have pursued ousting Saddam?
Not by invading at that time. We were not in danger from Saddam, AL queda was not present in IRaq at that time, and international weapons inspectors were in Iraq. I think if he had waited out that process for a few months, we'd have had more countries of substance on board for deposing saddam.
And besides, you were said "we", as in more than one person supported the UNs actions. Prove that.
I didn't say that.
Yes you did!
And to think that the Democrats demand that the UN determine when the US might use its military.

Though, that fits right in with their perception of foreign policy: fondle the enemy and hope they don't spit in your eye.

ignore it all you want, but it's an accurate description of you people.

This pattern has been repeated so many times...I wonder why you Democrats keep demanding that we engage in it?
I did state that you people supported handing away US sovereignty to the UN. You voted for a candidate who advocated precisely that.
Exactly. Referring to others posting on this board as "You people" indicates plurality. You say "we" support the UN, I say prove it.

Besides all that, YOU voted for Bush, who also supports the UN.

So I guess that means it's your fault, too?

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:46 pm
by Mister Bushice
mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Obviously after a ba zillion unenforced resolutions they meant nothing, but that didn't give Bush Carte Blanche to invade on his own.
As a point of fact as well as law, it did.
No, it gave the member Body of the UN the right to invade, not just the US as a the singular, major force. If that wasn't they case, why did the SC vote against it?
I condemned Bush for going into Iraq essentially alone for the exact reasons we are bogged down there now. I supported the ousting of Saddam, but not the way it was done.
Which is what makes you a gibbering dumbfuck. We did not go in "essentially alone". We went in with the only functional military force Europe has to offer besides the French.
Bah. What percentage of active in country military forces/resources/supplies were non american?
Then again the French had other priorities such as a French bank being the clearing house for the oil for palaces program and Saddam's exclusive rights offer to TotalFinaElf to develop the Majnun oil fields.
Not to mention Chirac's long, personal friendship with Saddam.

Let's see. Who else was on Saddam's payroll. You have the Russians and the Chinese. The Germans also have a long history with Saddam. I mean who would be more qualified to build your chemical weapons industry than Germans, right? We seem to running out of "international options" here.
The problem lies there. The solution to that problem was not comitting to a war we can't ever really win. The solution was to get more of those countries on board or to tackle the corruption.
Our policy is quite independent of international approval or support and it has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation in Iraq.
Yes I know, It's called an inability to practice effective diplomacy, courtesy of the Bush whitehouse. AKA "My way or the highway".
If you think another handful of useless Euros would tip the balance in Iraq, you are far more stupid than I give you credit for being.
Try a hundred billion dollars or so of support in the form of training, equipment, supplies etc. Everyone knows the military of most of those euro countries aren't worth shit, but their money could have done a lot of talking for them.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:18 pm
by Variable
mvscal wrote:Then again the French had other priorities such as a French bank being the clearing house for the oil for palaces program and Saddam's exclusive rights offer to TotalFinaElf to develop the Majnun oil fields.
Not to mention Chirac's long, personal friendship with Saddam.
Also huge was the fact that Russia, Germany and France were all holding IOUs in the billions from Iraq. They knew that if Saddam's government were to be overthrown that the international community would ask that foreign debt be forgiven to give the new gov't firmer ground to stand on. There's no way in hell that any of those three countries would have voted for ANY military action against Iraq EVER. They'd be stupid to do so. This, among a slew of other reasons, is why giving any country in the UN Security Council veto power is retarded.
Bushice wrote:The solution was to get more of those countries on board or to tackle the corruption.
It would have been nice, but never would have happened. Since they were making money hand over fist BECAUSE of the corruption, they have no interest in ending it. Would you also elicit the help of the mob to end narcotics distribution and prostitution?

Hi, Medellin Cartel? I was wondering if you'd be willing to help us convert coca plantations into banana farms. Hello?...Hello? - President Bushice

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:19 pm
by BSmack
I'll take the utter lack of a response from Dittotard as a "Yes, you were correct".

Now go forth and feel free to stop sucking.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:30 pm
by Variable
BSmack wrote:I'll take the utter lack of a response from Dittotard as a "Yes, you were correct".

Now go forth and feel free to stop sucking.
Maybe he's got something better to do than sit on a message board all day and respond to....BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! I can't even complete that thought. His internet must be down or something. :D

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:35 pm
by BSmack
Variable wrote:
BSmack wrote:I'll take the utter lack of a response from Dittotard as a "Yes, you were correct".

Now go forth and feel free to stop sucking.
Maybe he's got something better to do than sit on a message board all day and respond to....BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! I can't even complete that thought. His internet must be down or something. :D
Well all know that mv is right there in the group of posters who would never let pass an opportunity to continue an argument if he thougyht he had a fighting chance. You know, right there along with you, me, Detard, Bushice....

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:36 pm
by Mister Bushice
mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:No, it gave the member Body of the UN the right to invade, not just the US as a the singular, major force. If that wasn't they case, why did the SC vote against it?
They didn't. Why do you not know what the fuck you're talking about? He was in open violation of any one of a number of Chapter 7 resolutions.

We enforced those standing resolutions.
That's not solely our job to do. Besides, remember they are UN resolutions. You know how valuable those are, don't you? :roll:

Why is it the United states job to be the police of the world? That is a policy I disagree with, especially when it leaves us lacking at home. The Bush administration has missed dozens of deadlines set by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks for developing ways to protect airplanes, ships and railways from terrorists. A plan to defend ships and ports from attack is six months overdue. Rules to protect air cargo from infiltration by terrorists are two months late. A study on the cost of giving anti-terrorism training to federal law enforcement officers who fly commercially was supposed to be done more than three years ago.
Bah. What percentage of active in country military forces/resources/supplies were non american?
Irrelevant. Until you gain a clearer understanding of just how pathetic Europe's military capability is, you would better served by shutting the fuck up.
No it's not irrelevant. Financial backing from other countries would have gone a long way towards lessening our financial black hole.
Britain is, by far, the only country that is worth a shit on that fucked up continent.
BFD. What do they have - 9,000 troops over there? And their exit strategy calls for reducing that by almost half by spring 2006.
The problem lies there. The solution to that problem was not comitting to a war we can't ever really win. The solution was to get more of those countries on board or to tackle the corruption.
Wake the fuck up, moron. They weren't and still aren't interested in tackling that corruption. They were profiting from it, idiot. Once again you are fucking clueless. Countries do not act against their perceived interests. France actively sabotaged our efforts because it was in their interests to keep Saddam in power. Same with Russia and China. "A little more time" with weapons "inspectors" wasn't going to change that neither was "more effective diplomacy".
Could not have been more difficult than the avenue we did pursue.
Nor is this a war we can't win. We are winning this war. Saddam is just waiting for the noose. These insurgents have been slaughtered by the tens of thousands. The much ballyhooed civil war that AQ has attempted to start has failed. The Iraqis have ratified a national constitution and will continue to move forward with the democratic process.
There has been no cessation in the violence. When we leave, it will erupt and erase any gains. It makes no difference that they're electing leaders the opposition doesn't recognize. That just makes them targets.
You think a roadside bomb here and there and few drive bys is a sign of defeat? Get a fucking grip, pantload.
Oh yeah, it's a real picnic over there. 100,000 civilians dead, and no signs of the violence letting up. Nice glossing over of the situation.
Yes I know, It's called an inability to practice effective diplomacy, courtesy of the Bush whitehouse. AKA "My way or the highway".
There is no diplomacy effective or otherwise without a credible threat of force behind it. That threat has been squandered through the years to such a point that shitheaded pipsqueaks like Iraq and Afghanistan felt confident in thumbing their nose at us.
And Bushs arrogant approach has done nothing but serve to alienate the international community to the point that we couldn't squeeze a dollar out of them now.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:46 pm
by Mister Bushice
a roadside bomb here and there and few drive bys you know, just some minor annoyances.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:11 pm
by Variable
mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:a roadside bomb here and there and few drive bys you know, just some minor annoyances.
As far as wars go, you bet. They don't get any better.
...Which he and others like him who haven't served will never "get".

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:22 pm
by Mister Bushice
I don't think you have to serve in a war to understand that 100,000 civilian casualties is a lot, and that "no cessation in the level of violence" means we haven't contained or reduced those fighting against the changes.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:31 pm
by DrDetroit
BSmack wrote:I'll take the utter lack of a response from Dittotard as a "Yes, you were correct".

Now go forth and feel free to stop sucking.
What exactly did you expect me to be responding to?

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:34 pm
by Cuda
mvscal wrote:
Variable wrote:At this point the only way to reform the UN is to threaten it with irrelevancy by simply ignoring it.
You will never "reform" the UN. It is an inherently flawed concept that will never work under any conditions.
You don't understand a fucking thing about the UN, asshole.

We meet, we discuss, we fucking PARTY all the fucking TIME.

Just fuck the fuck off

-sin
Every UN Delegate that ever was

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:35 pm
by Variable
Mister Bushice wrote:I don't think you have to serve in a war to understand that 100,000 civilian casualties is a lot, and that "no cessation in the level of violence" means we haven't contained or reduced those fighting against the changes.
"A lot" compared to what? That's the problem. You don't have a barometer (i.e. you haven't served so you don't know what a high/low number is) and therefore it will always seem high to you. Why don't you look up German civilian casualties in WWII from 1944-1945 and come back to the table with an informed opinion. Ah, what the hell...since I'm sure you won't look, I'll tell you. 2.44 million fucking people. Ninety percent of those were killed in a two year span between late 1943 and 1945.

No, the violence has not been ceased. But to say that those responsible haven't been contained or reduced is just mind-numbingly dumb. Do you not remember the roving bands of organized Ba'athists at the conclusion of formal hostilities? Where are they? Gonzo. Where are the bomb factories in Fallujah? Gonzo. Where are the insurgent training camps outside Tikrit? Gonzo. The insurgents have been reduced from coordinated, heavily-armed attacks in Baghdad and other metropolitan centers, for the better part of a year to creeping in ditches and placing bombs at the side of roads out in the middle of the desert. That's not a reduction? They've gone from being a wave of machine gun-toting jihadists to Patrick Swayze in "Red Dawn".

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:44 pm
by Mikey
Variable wrote: They've gone from being a wave of machine gun-toting jihadists to Patrick Swayze in "Red Dawn".
If that's the case, then why have the casualty numbers been increasing

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:53 pm
by Mikey
For a plethora (or maybe a cornucopia) of stats, you can check this...

http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/fp/ ... /index.pdf

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:13 am
by Variable
Mikey wrote:
Variable wrote: They've gone from being a wave of machine gun-toting jihadists to Patrick Swayze in "Red Dawn".
If that's the case, then why have the casualty numbers been increasing
Again, increasing compared to what? Last week? The last few months? Could that possibly be because of the constitution and other issues currently on the table and the assholes are trying to disrupt things? Good thing you're not pulling something like body counts out of your ass and not providing any context...

You'll notice, if you read the info at your own link, that with the exception of IED attacks, deaths and casualties have dropped significantly in essentially every other category. Why? Because they've been reduced to fighting back by putting bombs on the side of the road. Since there is essentially no defense for this type of attack, especially when you've got some nutcase who's willing to sit out in the middle of the desert for days on end with his finger on a button waiting for a truck full of TP to drive by.