*shrug* Wasn't meant as an insult. Just an observation that you frequently express the sort of views that are at odds with the prevailing politics of the hip forums. Like I said, I never suggested you shouldn't post here. I was just curious what attracted you to the place. I wasn't seeking to argue the rights or wrongs of the war. I was pointing out why those rights and wrongs are a matter of opinion. However, the Iraqi regime had never aligned itself with Al Qaeda. Opinions aren't facts, but facts are facts. The US and UK governments have admitted that there are no WMD in Iraq, Iraq was not developing a nuclear weapons program, Iraq was not linked to Al Qaeda. The war, therefore, was fought under a false pretext. That's a fact, not an opinion. Bringing what up? And if we were in the habit of going to war on the basis of UN resolutions being broken, we'd have invaded Israel long ago. Sorry Matthew, I don't understand that sentence. Huh? You are aware that Iraq was a secular regime, right? Uhhhh... did anyone suggest Al Qaeda wasn't evil?
Argh, I have to stop! Apparently I don't have a sense of humour, so if I carry on this exchange of comic comments there's a very real danger of reality collapsing in on itself. Or at least vanishing up its own arse
Well if Dok' stopped over egging and actualy gave me a bit of information, so as to learn a bit of stuff from his perspective, rather than trying to be a comedian we might get somewere. I never wanted to debate with him, because he goes around and around in circles and bybasses anything that he does not realy want to answer. It would not be so bad if he did not start this whole crazyness for nothing more than 1 line of my post (so he says). he is quite ridiculous realy. yes i think i am learning bugger all from Dok' because clearly he is just has his head up his bottom. I am not attention seeking at all, trust me on that. I just have a bit of time on my hands, thats all. I still think, not sharing information and just saying look for it yourself, then questioning why i don't realise this and why i did not realise that . i have no interest in questioning his politics at all , just he asserting he has a better point of view than myself, and i am too thick to understand anything. Dok' has given very little in the way of real information at all. He assumes what he says is correct, all i am asking is to point me in the right direction..this is all. But again his inteligence i think stretches not very far realy... yeah the longer we go on the more it gets fruitless, i realise this. so don't worry its all gonna end for me about n......
The statement that Saddam was in breach of the resolutions regarding WMDs was one made by Britain and America, not the UN. It was rhetoric and bold assertion, and it turnes out to have been false - Iraq had no WMD. There was never any evidence given at the time that Saddam had stockpiles of any proscribed weapons. The breaches to which 1441 refers are about the inspection process, they do not suggest that Iraq had WMDs. Read Hans Blix's and Mohammed El-Baradei's reports to the UN; at no point do they state that Iraq is in breach of the WMD ban. The problems raised by Blix were procedural and technical, as part of his role as head of the monitoring and verification commission which was undergoing a process of clearing up the almost totally completed disarmament of Iraq and checking it was adhering to the weapons bans set out in resolution 687 (1991). So, no resolutions were broken which would justify going to war. Going to war over procedural and technical violations is against the spirit of the UN charter. This is why the UN did not authorise war - something which makes it an illegal war in itself. I don't know if you bothered to read my earlier post about the technical legal situation regarding the legality of the war, but I'd suggest you do so.
Hang on! You were complaining that I had no sense of humour a little while back! There's just no pleasing you, is there Matthew? I provide you with answers. You just don't like the answers. That's your problem, not mine. That was the original issue, way back. I think we've moved on a bit from there. Ah, more childish insults. It seems as soon as there's some hope of you actually debating like an adult, you seem to slip back into your infantile habits. Perhaps Ms Starfly's school really would be the best place for you? I've explained a lot about my position to you. I've provided a lot of information. Why should I go to the effort of looking up even more information when you can do it equally well yourself? Especially when you'll probably just disagree with it anyway? You don't pay any attention at all, do you Matthew? I've already said on numerous occasions that opinions on the war are just that - opinions. I've made no value judgement about your opinion at any stage, despite you repeatedly accusing me of doing so. I challenge you - find one instance to support this accusation. I think I've already explained that I'm not your secretary. Blah blah blah blah. You keep complaining like a spoiled child, but repeatedly fail to substantiate any of your accusations. What, specifically, have I "assumed to be correct"? One example, please? Matthew, you're pathetic. All you can do is fall back on personal insults. Do you understand the meaning of irony? Because having my intelligence challenged by somoene who doesn't even understand the basics of sentence structure is very, very ironic.
oh hi ...yeah i need a bit of an oasis hahah . its alright. no harm done realy. just you realise some things about people thats all. it was a learning curve believe me. for all the wrong reasons.
I really think we should bury this now, trading insults is leading us nowhere and isn't what this forum's for, that's for the House of Commons....
Nice terminology... Sorry if someones already picked up on this, but I find your use of "gay" as an insult to be very offensive. Gay - Happy Gay - Homosexual ... either way it's not a word to be used as an insult unless YOU yourself see being gay as a bad thing?
Well if you guys are in Brighton this weekend I could be persuaded Although, you'll have to ask my Magical Hobbit first Love Clairexxx
I think "gay" as an insult, while its origin is clearly in homophobia, has begun to take on a less offensive general meaning, distinct from its homophobic connotations. Slang words change their meaning all the time. When used as in the context above it has often become completely detached from its original meaning. See: The word "gay" is now also used as slang to express derision or mockery. For example, "my computer is acting gay", or "that hat is so gay". The derogatory implication is that the object (or person) in question is inferior, weak, effeminate, or just stupid. This slang is very common among young people who commonly do not link the term to homosexuality. It appears to float free of the accepted usage and exists as a transgressive insult which many find offensive beyond the intention of those using it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
In fairness, I think SelfControl is in fact gay himself. Still, don't personally think it's a good idea to encourage a connection between derisory slang and homosexuality.
I actually think it's quite a creative development, harnessing the transgressive power of a word for purposes other than its originally intended transgression.
Well it's not that simple though. All the people who I regularly hear use the word in a derisory context do so with the intent of deriding something by comparing it to homosexuality. Implicit in the use of this word as an insult is the understanding that being 'gay' is something undesirable.
Yeah that's how Claire interpreted it too, but I'm suggesting this interpretation does not take account of a recent evolution in its meaning. I regularly hear it being used devoid of homophobic connotations, and if SelfControl is himself gay then I'm sure he sees it that way too.
