The debate on Iraq

Xanith; you really live in a sorry state of affairs. You justify civilian deaths like it is just a sideshow to American foreign policy. When confronted with an argument you find either difficult to follow you avoid it.

It is the rhetoric of people such as you that ensure that oppressive foreign policies continue to come to fruition.

The last resolution that the UN made about Iraq is the context. So why the others. Elsewhere on this thread I've listed appaling American acts in UN abusing their veto to support state terrorism and to avoid strenghtening human rights. I guess you would deem this out of context, too - but to the rest of the world it is another nail in the coffin of American foreign policy.

You clearly state that the use of (or potential use of) WMD is a cause of concern. But any parrallels used you say is taken out of context. The only country in world history to kill 100,000 civilians in one go is America. Your mindset is prepared to kill 1000's of innocent people for the implementation of it's foreign policy - and then tell the world it's for their own good. How does that work, then? How can you even attempt to justify it?

Your abstract of morality is clearly based on the concept that the biggest boy in the playground must be right because he's bigger. You justify state-sponsored terrorism (what did the civilians in the recent conflict have to do with Saddam?)

You continue to arm Israel whilsts Israel continues to segregate and violate the human rights of the Palestinians (check out the number of UN res for that, then) You continue to ignore dictators around the world that abuse human rights. You continue to support, and arm Pakistan (who continue to sponsor terrorist acts in Kashmir, and India) You must live with your head up your own a**e.

America used to feel safe, once, waving it's big stick around the world. I would have hoped at least one positive to come out of the recent atrocities would be an introverted look at oneself. I know now that I am mistaken.

You do not see that war is unacceptable unless it is to defend an agression. Saddam did perform acts of agression against his own people; but this can hardly be a justification as there are leaders the world over doing the same thing today - but America chooses not to wave it's big stick to intervene in that one.

I can see of no justification that you state, Xanith, that cannot be applied elsewhere. You are not consistent in either your beliefs or your facts. You justify civilian deaths in the context of a war that you simply cannot justify soundly.

Quote:

---

Clarify

---

Saddam could have told us what happened to the unaccounted weapons but he didnt co-operate. Therfore he is a threat, he potentially had hidden weapons and he wasnt cooperating.

Israel has accounted for all there weapons (that we know of) and is co-operating. You seem to forget the Palestinian terrorists started the past 2 or so years of skirmishes not Israel!!! Hence no immediate threat.

Didnt think it was that hard to understand :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

You do not see that war is unacceptable unless it is to defend an agression. Saddam did perform acts of agression against his own people; but this can hardly be a justification as there are leaders the world over doing the same thing today - but America chooses not to wave it's big stick to intervene in that one.

---

You have an attitude of 'Its not my problem i am not being killed for no reason' and yet you moan when somebody attempts to stop it. There is no pleasing some people!!

Your saying we should attack all those we dont like you are worse than us, and yet you criticise us!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

Quote:

---

Your saying we should attack all those we dont like you are worse than us, and yet you criticise us!!!!

---

No I'm not. It's the point that I'm making. I'm very pleased you raised it.

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

If you use a justification for war - whether moral, or political you must use that judgement uniformly and apply that judgement to all nations.

YOU (those that support the recent agressions) DO NOT APPLY YOUR PRINCIPLES UNIFORMLY.

If you can state, to me, a unique justification of why Saddam has been singled out above all other nations, then I will understand.

As yet, no one seems capable of this.

Glad to see that you see the dualism in your arguments though; I felt I was banging my head against a brick wall.

'bout time too.

Saddam was

A) Not co-operating
B) Not accounting for loads of weapons
C) Thought to have nuclear weapons
D) Thrown out weapons inspectors
E) Violated human rights
F) Violated resolutions passed against him

No other country had / has these problems. Many other countries are being watched or talked to.

You assume Saddam was like any other country. We dont want global war we want protection against nutters like Saddam. Apparently you are happy with Saddam until he comes knocking on your door with a large arsenal of weapons. :) :) :)

P.s The feeling of banging your head against a brick wall is mutual :D :D :D

Quote:

---

Saddam was

A) Not co-operating
B) Not accounting for loads of weapons
C) Thought to have nuclear weapons
D) Thrown out weapons inspectors
E) Violated human rights
F) Violated resolutions passed against him

No other country had / has these problems. Many other countries are being watched or talked to.

---

a - America is not cooperating (Kyoto, UN etc)

b - America will not allow independent inspections for it's WMD stash despite calls at the UN security council for the same.

c - America is known to have nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons

d - see (b)

e - more specifically:In 2001, the United States was voted out of the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the International Narcotics Committee. This shows, from one aspect, that it is extremely unpopular for the United States to push double standards and unilateralism on such issues as human rights, crackdowns on drug trafficking, arms control and environmental protection

f - has the power of veto so doesn't get resolutions passed against her.

America fits the criteria. WHEN DO WE INVADE!

US voted from Human Rights Commission :http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/03/us.human/

US signs but fails to ratify UN Convention on the Rights of a Child

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conven...s_of_the_Child

Only Somalia fails to do so as well (which means every country in the world has signed, and ratified)

Furthermore:

Quote:

---

Q: Who has not ratified and why not?
A: The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. Only two countries, Somalia and the United States, have not ratified this celebrated agreement. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government. By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify – but has yet to do so.

As in many other nations, the United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compliance with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized. For example, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide took more than 30 years to be ratified in the United States and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which was signed by the United States 17 years ago, still has not been ratified. Moreover, the US Government typically will consider only one human rights treaty at a time. Currently, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is cited as the nation's top priority among human rights treaties.

---

http://www.unicef.org/crc/faq.htm#009

Quote:

---

The United States appeared Wednesday, May 10 in front of the United Nations Convention Against Torture in Geneva in its first appearance before the body since ratifying the convention six years ago. The human rights group Amnesty International filed a 45-page report with the UN committee that documented specific cases where the US has violated the international pact.

Amnesty International stated, “Since the United States ratified the Convention Against Torture in October 1994, its increasingly punitive approach towards offenders has continued to lead to practices which facilitate torture or other forms of ill-treatment prohibited under international law.”

---

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/ma...-m12_prn.shtml

Quote:

---

The report highlighted the role of the United States in supporting the Guatemalan military. According to the report "the United States government and U.S. private companies exercised pressure to maintain the country's unjust socio-economic structure. In addition, the United States Government, through its constituent structures, including the Central Intelligence Agency, lent direct and indirect support to some illegal state operations. " According to a Truth Commission aid cited in the New York Times, the United States government had knowledge that the Guatemalan government was engaged in genocide and continued its support.

---

http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page36.html

It was an election you idiot!!!

They werent voted out they just werent voted back in. They were not thrown out for violating human rights and if you look at what people beleive is the reason for them not getting it then you would realise it has nothing to do with individual human rights.


Oh for fu**s sake read them

Quote:

---

By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify – but has yet to do so. The United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compliance with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized

---

They havent turned it down and will probably sign it but they must check no conflicts occur with their laws. Remember they run to the declaration and CANNOT violate it :) :)

Quote:

---

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/m...t-m12_prn.shtml

---

And the UN voted which way?

Every country has violations by single members such as police officers. In this case it is condemned by the country and the offender is breaking the law.

It goes without saying that almost every country in the world has committed human rights violations.

I want to make it absolutely certain that I am not anti-american, or anti-semitist.

I believe that the UK (my country) is just as much as fault as any other (and in some cases, such as Iraq, and the Palestine issue - more at fault)

I reckon that the foreign policies of most countries of the world leave a lot to be desired.

Equal rights is now at the forefront of peoples minds unlike some years ago when violations were caused. I hope we never see these governments do appalling things again but lets face it they could all be doing it behind our backs :( :( :(

I reckon they all do it behind our backs.

Western governments only have any sort of power they have now because of exploitation of less powerful governments and their peoples over that last 200 years.

Every single one of them.

Bod:

I take it you deem that non-ratification of international treaties acceptable behaviour in the face of the international community?

And btw before you call people idiots re-read some of your posts.

LOL i know i am an idiot :D :D :D

The point of agreeing is not to follow everyone else but make up your own mind that is democracy what you are saying is America should have just rafitied the agreement witout actually makeing a honest decision.

Thats the way democracys and organisations like the UN will collapse :) :) :)

Quote:

---

The point of agreeing is not to follow everyone else but make up your own mind that is democracy what you are saying is America should have just rafitied the agreement witout actually makeing a honest decision.

---

NO. That is not what I am saying. I am questioning the amount of time it takes to ratify some of the treaties; it would appear that the US (in some cases) have no intention of ratifying these treaties.

I do not know this as a fact; but unfortunately - this is the way it looks.

Besides: would you agree that only US, and Somalia check the details thoroughly?

You have to admit; it does look bad.

America is in many ways a large group of countries as the laws are different in each state and so all must be checked.

Somalia had the biggest disadvatage with not having a government and all :D :D :D

it doesnt look good i agree but then why push them to a decision would that not also violate their right to vote by forcing a decision?

I thought i read another article that says they have ratified that agreement?? :confused: :confused:

Quote:

---

Xanith; you really live in a sorry state of affairs. You justify civilian deaths like it is just a sideshow to American foreign policy. When confronted with an argument you find either difficult to follow you avoid it.

---

I don’t justify civilian deaths as I said I am a realist. In a war civilians are going to die. However the US military has taken extreme precautions in insuring that civilian casualties do not occur. No country in history has taken such precautions to assure that innocents don’t die. And when last I checked I have answered every point brought forth by you. If you wish to have a debate about a specific subject start a new thread about it and I will be happy to respond.

Quote:

---

It is the rhetoric of people such as you that ensure that oppressive foreign policies continue to come to fruition.

---

Oppressive to whom? And I don’t use rhetoric, I assemble the facts and I present my argument to the best of my ability.

Quote:

---

The last resolution that the UN made about Iraq is the context. So why the others. Elsewhere on this thread I've listed appaling American acts in UN abusing their veto to support state terrorism and to avoid strenghtening human rights. I guess you would deem this out of context, too - but to the rest of the world it is another nail in the coffin of American foreign policy.

---

You listed those out of context yes. You never stated why the US vetoed them. Behind every banner there is a story and you failed to list that. So unless you gather all the facts as to WHY the US vetoed those resolutions your list becomes just a facade. Seek the facts behind each and every one of those UN resolutions that were vetoed before putting forth your indignant outrage.

Quote:

---

You clearly state that the use of (or potential use of) WMD is a cause of concern. But any parrallels used you say is taken out of context. The only country in world history to kill 100,000 civilians in one go is America. Your mindset is prepared to kill 1000's of innocent people for the implementation of it's foreign policy - and then tell the world it's for their own good. How does that work, then? How can you even attempt to justify it?

---

As I have said before and will say again so you understand. No country in the history of the world has been more careful about not inflicting civilian causalities than the US. The US military does this to a point that even puts its own troops in harms way for the sake of preserving innocent civilian life. I want you to tell me if you think war is ever justified if 1 innocent civilian can possibly be killed. Was World War II justifiable? Should we have not booted Hitler out of Europe for the sake of innocent civilian lives? Should we not have bombed German infrastructure and factories because civilians could have been killed?

Quote:

---

Your abstract of morality is clearly based on the concept that the biggest boy in the playground must be right because he's bigger. You justify state-sponsored terrorism (what did the civilians in the recent conflict have to do with Saddam?)

---

What do civilians have to do with any war? Is war ever justifiable? Is freeing a people who’s dictator piled them up in mass graves and torture chambers justifiable? Is leaving the Iraqi people under the boot of Saddam with many many more dying under his rule than have died in the invasion of Iraq and would continue to die a better scenario to you? Are you the kind of person who will sit idly by while hundreds of thousands more die in Iraq to be later found in mass graves due to your inaction?

Quote:

---

You continue to arm Israel whilsts Israel continues to segregate and violate the human rights of the Palestinians (check out the number of UN res for that, then) You continue to ignore dictators around the world that abuse human rights. You continue to support, and arm Pakistan (who continue to sponsor terrorist acts in Kashmir, and India) You must live with your head up your own a**e.

---

Everyone is selling arms to Israel. And when last I checked Palestinians were blowing themselves up on busses and in cafe‘s and killing innocent woman and children. For someone who seems to be so concerned with the deaths of the innocent where is your outrage at those terrorist groups who are killing innocent Israeli civilians?

Pakistan is helping the US root out terrorists and therefore is an uneasy ally at the moment. Aide to Pakistan is hardly anything compared to countries like Israel and Egypt. The US is hardly arming Pakistan as you put it. Besides you don’t want the US going after terrorists in other countries why would you want them to do something about the ones attacking India? Isn’t that India’s problem?

Quote:

---

America used to feel safe, once, waving it's big stick around the world. I would have hoped at least one positive to come out of the recent atrocities would be an introverted look at oneself. I know now that I am mistaken.

---

Yeah you are mistaken about a great many things.

Quote:

---

You do not see that war is unacceptable unless it is to defend an agression. Saddam did perform acts of agression against his own people; but this can hardly be a justification as there are leaders the world over doing the same thing today - but America chooses not to wave it's big stick to intervene in that one.

---

It’s the UN’s job is it not to stop things such as this? The UN is a total failure in this regard, just look at how many died in Rwanda while the UN stood by and did nothing. If the UN is a total failure who is going to do something about these kinds of things? You solution of, well it happens everywhere so lets just let them all die solution is hardly that answer don’t you think?

Quote:

---

I can see of no justification that you state, Xanith, that cannot be applied elsewhere. You are not consistent in either your beliefs or your facts. You justify civilian deaths in the context of a war that you simply cannot justify soundly.

---

Maybe in your mind it is not justifiable. In my mind it based solely on freeing the Iraqi people from under Saddam. Even you cannot deny the mass graves or torture chambers that were found. Even putting aside WMD, terrorist connections, and defiance of UN resolutions you are still left with the undeniable freedom of the Iraqi people from death, torture, and rape at the hands of Saddam. Can I justify war simply on that context alone? Yes I can. And for you with all your concern of innocent life seem to not even care about what Saddam did and would still be doing to his people because hey it happens everywhere right? And why should we do anything to save anyone. Your so-called concern for innocent civilians is nothing more than a political tool. You sir are the one who is not consistent in your beliefs or facts.

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
No I'm not. It's the point that I'm making. I'm very pleased you raised it.

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

If you use a justification for war - whether moral, or political you must use that judgement uniformly and apply that judgement to all nations.

YOU (those that support the recent agressions) DO NOT APPLY YOUR PRINCIPLES UNIFORMLY.

If you can state, to me, a unique justification of why Saddam has been singled out above all other nations, then I will understand.

As yet, no one seems capable of this.

Glad to see that you see the dualism in your arguments though; I felt I was banging my head against a brick wall.

'bout time too.

---

Every situation is different and must be delt with differently. When last I checked the world was a dynamic and ever changing place not a strict and uniform never changing place. Maybe go back to banging your head against a brick wall maybe it will knock some sense into it :)

X

Xanith

Which war has solved what?
Why is war against Saddam justified?

Just so I can see your point of view. No rhetoric - just facts. Please.

Quote:

---

Maybe go back to banging your head against a brick wall maybe it will knock some sense into it

---

I don't need to - I read your posts . . .

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
I don't need to - I read your posts . . .

---

Good to know my posts have knocked some sense into you :)

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
America fits the criteria. WHEN DO WE INVADE!

---

By all means, feel free. Bring the whole lot of ya!!!

C'mon chaps:

What are the justifications for war. Let's not pontificate. Let's not wallow in soliliquy.

What are the justifications?

Quote:

---

By all means, feel free. Bring the whole lot of ya!!!

---

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume a monarch's duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, please comply with the following acts:

1. Look up "revoke" in a dictionary
2. Learn at least the first 4 lines of "God Save the Queen"
3. Start referring to "soccer" as football

Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

:D :D

All UK Citizens will now be refered to as lord or lady!!!


:D :D :D :D


I have put forward the justifications countless times

ABOUT SADDAM

HE WAS A POTENTIAL THREAT TO MILLIONS OF LIVES AND WAS THUS REMOVED. HE WAS A ****** OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE. HE WAS A HEARTLESS, BRUTAL DICTATOR WITH A WONDERFUL PLAN OF WORLD DOMINATION.

HE WAS REMOVED FOR HUMANITARIAN AND WORLD STABILITY REASONS.

think thats putting it simply dont you :) :) :)

Quote:

---

HE WAS A POTENTIAL THREAT TO MILLIONS OF LIVES AND WAS THUS REMOVED. HE WAS A ****** OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE. HE WAS A HEARTLESS, BRUTAL DICTATOR WITH A WONDERFUL PLAN OF WORLD DOMINATION.

---

Sounds like the plot to a James Bond film . . .

Everyone is a potential threat.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
Everyone is a potential threat.

---

Yes that's absolutely correct. Everyone is a potential threat...equally. Everyone has the same ability and resources available to them. Everyone has previously used biological weapons on their own people.

Everyone is a potential threat.
Absolutely BRILLIANT!!!!

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

I have to say (and I feel that I have given enough time to the pro-war lot) that all the talk on this page has been:

Reactionary:
Argument against the concern over the war; not justification for it

Defensive:
Reacting to any anti-war stance as a slur upon their country, and getting rather upset about it.

Conditional:
By this I mean justifications like 'might have done' 'probably would have' 'might be' 'potential' which is no basis for any argument.

Now - we know the following:

Saddam invaded another country
Saddam possessed weapons of mass-destruction
Saddam avoided, and ignored UN demands
Saddam killed countless thousands of his own people, as well as oppressing 100,000's more.

So as many of you have said this puts Saddam on this list of all time bad dictators.

Now, on the world stage, this does not distinguish Saddam from some other nations who fulfill this criteria in part or in full.

So, I ask, if the war against Iraq was justified (by one of the afore-mentioned reasons) why are we not at war with other countries that are guilty of the same? Or are there other reasons that I missing?

It is this question that has consistently been avoided and the pro-war lobby have failed to provide any clear answer

I doubt there is one.

So you're suggesting that we either:

A. Start a war with every dictator that has acted the same way that Sadaam has. Sounds reasonable.
or
B. Stand by idly and allow these things to continue and not attack anyone.

This is my point exactly: you have still not answered any of my questions in a satisfactory manner. How do you hope to convince anyone of your arguments?

If you can soundly answer these questions - I will back your case; but, to me, it seems as if you cannot.

I now have to add the term:

Avoidance:
Failure to address any issue of concern

to the list of tactics used by the pro-war lobby

I don't have a stance. I'm not answering any questions. I'm not trying to convince people with my argument. I'm not justifying anything (read my last post, jerky)

I'll add this to the stance of the anti-way lobby:
Failure to read properly :rolleyes:

I support my country. You don't. I could care less what you support. I don't concern myself with things I can't control. My buddy is over there wrecking some stuff. As long as he comes home in one piece (alive), I'm a happy guy. You should care less, as well. You won't be so stressed out.

I should retract something. I care about some things that I can't control. Take, for instance, the Michigan/Notre Dame game tomorrow. I have no control over the outcome. But oh boy will I be upset if Michigan loses. Also, I'd like to see the Lions go into Green Bay and win a game at Lambeau Field for once. That would be a great weekend. I hope I golf well on Saturday...of course I have control over that. I hope my fantasy football team does well. These are the things that are really important. These are the types of things that you should spend your time on.

Go Blue!

I'm an American. Don't hate me cause you ain't me.

If you can name another country that invaded a neighbor and was then attacked by an international coalition to drive them out, then had conditions placed on them for the suspension of hostilities that were ignored by said country for over 12 years, with 17 UN resolutions saying they were in violation of those conditions then I would say lets invade them as well.

I want your list of countries that you feel have been guilty of the same thing.

The reason Saddam was not toppled in 1991 was that he promised to rid his country of ALL WMD’s and the programs that make them and provide the proof of their destruction. According to UN inspectors and ALL UN resolutions passed since the end of the conflict in 1991 stated that the country of Iraq was not in compliance with that agreement (read the resolutions and transcripts of UN inspectors). Therefore non-compliance = resumption of hostilities. Iraq was given more than enough time to comply and even given one final chance that they didn’t take. The time came to act and just because the UN was unable to act (no surprise there) doesn’t mean the rest of the world shouldn’t act.

I hardly think the countries that were bought off by Iraq like France, Germany, and Russia through oil deals, drilling rights, and defense contracts should use their position in the UN to keep a murderous dictator in power for cheap gas and defense contracts do you? Don’t tell me you are so naive as to believe that these countries were actually for a peaceful resolution to this conflict do you? They wanted to protect their economic advantage and interests by keeping a murderous dictator in power. This is the real outrage in the Iraq situation that is conveniently overlooked by the anti-war crowd.

What was done in Iraq was a logical progression of Saddam’s stonewalling and failing to come clean about his WMD programs. Saddam brought this on himself when a coalition of nations got together and finally said 12 years and 17 resolutions is enough. Either come clean about your WMD programs and prove you have destroyed these weapons as you promised to do in 1991 or we are going to come in there ourselves and disarm you by force. Saddam failed to take his final chance therefore this war was a necessity. What more of an explanation do you need? Seems rather simple that even you can understand it.

Of course the bonus in all this is removing one of the most brutal dictators of all time responsible for the deaths of around 1 million people. You anti-war people love to bring up the small amount of civilian causalities in these wars, which by the way the US and coalition forces have taken extreme precautions to minimize these casualties to the point of putting their own forces in danger just to avoid killing an innocent. Yet you seem to conveniently overlook the mass graves and torture chambers that Saddam inflicted on his own people. If you were so concerned for the loss of innocent life you would have applauded the invasion of Iraq because now the most brutal of all dictators that was alive on the planet has been removed from power.

Your assumption that all situations should be dealt with in the same way is totally illogical. You would have a point if we lived in a world that was unchanging and if every situation was completely the same including all set of circumstances surrounding that situation. But we live in an ever-changing world in which policies and doctrine must change to fit the particular situation.

Different situations have a different set of circumstances surrounding it and therefore must be dealt with differently. You cannot apply the same doctrine or policy to a different set of circumstances because it wouldn’t work. Your argument about how if you do one thing in Iraq you must do the same thing in North Korea is totally erroneous because your logic assumes an unchanging world in which all circumstances are the same. Therefore your argument is made null and void due to the fact the world is a dynamic place and every situation is different. It is a rather simplistic and crude attempt at making your point that doesn’t work at all due to your unrealistic and false assumptions. Sorry, keep trying though.

X

Quote:

---

According to UN inspectors and ALL UN resolutions passed since the end of the conflict in 1991 stated that the country of Iraq was not in compliance with that agreement (read the resolutions and transcripts of UN inspectors). Therefore non-compliance = resumption of hostilities

---

This is the justification for war, then? You only need to say this - not babble on like an old woman.

Can you tell me then, that this is your justification for war? Forgot the short stories; there are no prizes for fiction, here.

What WMD in iraq? WMDs... anyone?

I have as well as the governments involved have stated what they think the justifications for war were before this conflict even began. You however don’t care to believe nor do you care to feel as if the plight of the Iraqi people was significant to warrant an invasion therefore there is really no point in restating what I have already posted.

As far as my rather lengthy posts go they are simply to counter your flawed and unrealistic logic you have presented in your case. You have failed time and time again to answer my questions and counter-points but instead have built on your flawed case specious conclusions that I have poked so many holes in as to render it so much swiss cheese.

I suggest you should maybe listen to a little less of the BBC and attempt to garner a different point of view that is not so obviously slanted and tainted with an anti-war agenda. I hope this post is sufficiently succinct and to the point as to not confuse you. I wouldn’t want to confuse you more than you already seem to be.

X

Quote:

---

As far as my rather lengthy posts go they are simply to counter your flawed and unrealistic logic you have presented in your case. You have failed time and time again to answer my questions and counter-points but instead have built on your flawed case specious conclusions that I have poked so many holes in as to render it so much swiss cheese.

---

I think that you will find that you cannot (and perhaps will not) present your case clearly. Forgot the counter-points, forget the argument. If you wish to make a case - present it clearly without the 'stop listening to the BBC' 'You're this, and you're that'

Please.

I'm interested in what you have to say - but you seem unable to say it.