I will ignore the arrogance of that ... well you should have the facts , are you just off to get them for me ...ok can't wait to see them soon. israel- palestine / tit - tat nothing comeing close to the resolutions broken by saddam ...but i am not going to get embroiled into that . Not going to answer anything more because then this would go the same way ...like i was saying early.. your only twisting what i am saying anyway.. like i said i aint playing.. Just show how clever you are and show were you got your information from (a paper trail) and the information that supports the facts you know and speak of and shut me up . Head the post 'its all about oil' Its very easy.
right.. what we need to remember is that even if this war wasn't about oil(which it was) it must have been about 1 of the following; 1, to rid the world of saddam.... which i think dok has already said is illegal under international law or summink like that. 2, to get rid of wmd.... which evry1 knows was a lie.. thats why there was none. 3, to take part in a crusade. in which the western world will shove democracy down the thoarts of those who live differently.... which surely constitutes regime change.. which is also illegal.. sooo what exactly was this war for? now correct me if any of this is wrong (and im sure some1 will) why exactly have we gone to war but to put some1 in power who will be more responsive to western demands.
As I said, this wouldn't be applicable unless you're suggesting that I'm taking an intentionally biased view to suit my negative perspective. You wouldn't suggest such a thing, would you? Well the US said it was going to war to find weapons of mass destruction. Where are they? I'm looking forward to you showing me the evidence. Are you just off to get it for me? OK, can't wait to see it soon. Oh right. So nothing worth going to war over then? So UN resolutions aren't important? Hang on, didn't you just say UN resolutions were a justification for invading Iraq? I think what you actually mean I'm doing is "producing more convincing and well-founded argumets". Yes, it's quite evident you "ain't playing". Oooh. Let me think. Iraq is a large oil producer. The West invades it. We can provide no other excuse for invading it apart from a flimsy pretext concerning WMD which is later proved to be entirely false. Hmmm. Not rocket science really, is it?
I think this war had 3 aims: 1: get oil (I'm pretty sure we';; all agree on that!) 2: make money (there are billions of dollars being made here, not least of all in selling the Iraqi debt and the arms trade) 3: get a leader in who is willing to contract EVERY SINGLE public works to US based companies. Seems to me like they've got what they wanted... ps. Hell yeah I want an apology, my country have killed hundreds if not thousands of innocent people for money, what I really want though is for our polititians to go unarmed to Iraq and help tidy up with their bare hands after apologising the the Iraqis as they're the ones who really need the apology
I know it is not funny ... wrong phraseology .. thats why i said sorry about this , just needed a bit of levity for a minute or 2
just typed in thi http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=breached+un+resolution+iraq+ into google ... dok' this is why i think people will gradualy collectively assume that the was/is deemed illegal with out any real proof , because a person in some authority said 'if you wish' its none commital at best and was sorta forced out of him..this does not make it illegal its just an opinion that is now 'out there' Mr Blair and others say this war is not illegal and have proof of this and shows it ...its deemed lies ...strange that. But then again its predictable i guess The resolutions you provided in my eyes are nothing on the scale of R1441 true i guess they are just another set of resolutions .. but they were a threat and a warning to saddam these resolutions could have been met . He just did not wish any inspectors to see what he may have or may not have/had ..hell he did not allow his own army to work together (cross regimental commitments) so as not to let them communicate with each other ..he was telling them all diffrent sets of lies to keep them in order. Not allowing his scientists to talk ?...it all may have been smoke and mirrors but what if ?. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2948068.stm http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html Its all dry stuff for sure..and can be interpreted how ever you like..me i just say what if ?. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/ Its all dry stuff for sure..and can be interpreted how ever you like..me i just say what if ?. He was a liar and did all he could to keep himself 'powerful' and a threat. http://www.iraqprocurement.com/ http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/ ITS ALL ABOUT OIL... http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm well nobody has realy tried to tell me or point me in the right direction to find out what this oil connection entails so i looked myself (again).. Dok' like i said i would be happy to say sorry if you can just show were you got your information from or just point me in the right direction..your own personal source not some random stuff like i gave . I guess just saying its about oil ..and the moment a american company brokers a contract with the new iraqi goverment or an iraqi company your case is closed ?.
And this is why nobody respects your opinion. Doesn't this strike you as slightly selective quoting? According to you, Kofi Annan says "if you wish". How about the full quote, Matthew? "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal" Bit more comprehensive, huh? And it was coaxed out of him because he's diplomatic, and reluctant to get drawn into the debate. That gives his opinion more weight, not less. You're so full of shit. Both sides have provided evidence to support their position. Neither side can 'prove' the legality or otherwise of the war, because ultimately it's a matter of interpretation and opinion. In your arrogance though, you appear to have deciced that only one side is credible. Which is kinda ironic when you consider that you were originally accusing anti-war campaigners of only listening to the facts that suited them. Oh, I see. So some UN resolutions are more important than others? Does it say that in the UN charter? It cuts both ways. You prove to me that the war was about anything other than oil. Obviously you can't, because it's just a matter of opinion. Nothing can be proved 100%. This is what makes you an arrogant though..... you dismiss the opinions of others as though your own opinion were a proven fact. It isn't. It's an opinion.
i did it was freely available within the link provided we agree and we agreed on this point before (eventualy). Not read any from 'your side'? must look harder i guess .... help You read what i say and jump to conclusions ..sure i may write like its fact ...everybody does in a way. I see that in the way you write..but don't point it out because its irelevant realy . Your just a bit agresive and sanctmonious with me i think but again i try not to let it affect the way i respond . My original thought in this thread was that no i don't believe that mr blair should apologise .... do you have a problem with that ? I would hate for you to respond to all my posts around here...that would be hard work.
Oh fuck off. You selectively quoted someone in a way purposefully designed to support your case. Manipulation of the facts. Not read any what? What the fuck are you on about? Can you string a coherent sentence together?!? Despite 'agreeing on this point', you still seem intent on telling this forum that the war waged on Iraq was legal, and that any other opinion is incorrect. Make your fucking mind up. Either you accept that there are other possible interpretations of the facts or you don't. No, it's the way you sneeringly dismiss opinions with which you don't agree. Liar. Find me one quote where I say that the war against Iraq was illegal, and that there's no other possible interpretation of the facts. I've been very careful not to adopt such an arrogant position because I'm very well aware of the subjectivity of such an issue. Absolutely. I find your opinions offensive and arrogant, not to mention entirely out of place and deliberately provocative in a left-of-centre forum. It makes me lash out I've already made my opinion clear. Try reading the thread. Yes, I can see that it would be. Seeing as you ask, not PMs, but I've certainly had a few comments on MSN. Furthermore, it doesn't take a genius to work out that not many people in this forum are going to respect an opinion that supports the war in Iraq.
WHAT!!! Don't quote Rense like its a factual information site, it's a load of crackpot shite! it's very funny at times I'll give it that but it's not a fact refferance site, if this is the sort of stuff you're going to base your opinions on then no wonder you're daft enough to support the war!
like i said i was trying to find some information that supported the theory that the war was about oil .. the link i gave was random like i said. Again like i said i would apreciate a bit of guidance in finding or even better Doks' (or yours)sources of information that he/you uses , i am not trying to say prove it or anything just show me so i can make up my mind on the evidence that made up his/yours mind ..ok its probably going to be lots of diffrent sources over a long studied period of time . Just saying give me some of your evidence ..thats all. Is not giving me much...it may or not have seemed like i was saying 'prove it' too clarify i am just saying 'show me'. I hoped or thought people had already read or heard what Mr annan had said...i was on the other hand talking to you (predominantly) so yeah i was kind of taking that qoute to make my point ... that this may i think (not this is fact) that maybe his statement may be used as a authorative validation and to add more credance to the thought that this war was illegal . If you think the war was illegal than hearing Mr annan is going to bolster your belief and maybe bolster the collective opinion (maybe subconciously) that this war was illegal. I can most of the time not all the time.. the bold respnse from me was to the bold text above .. ok is this more clear Not read any from 'your side'? must look harder i guess .... help So now i am sneeringly dismissing opinions ... were when ?? If i am sneering its at you and the way you quote someone (me) in a way purposefully designed to support your case. Manipulation of the facts. So from everyone to a few comments on MSN .. Yeah i realise that some people won't share my opinion of supporting the war in iraq ... but if they don't respect my opinion in this matter then i don't think they would mind if i don't respect theirs...whoever these people maybe . If they assume i am blood thirsty bush loving war mongerer , then they are jumping to conclusions and not realy reading what i am saying or reading stuff selectively..but thats another matter . Do you concern yourself to what other people think about you ? we may just agree on that . oh well i did play the game for a while i suppose , well done . Its been a pleasure so far .. glad to expand what i think and the way i think.. shame you have been a bit like i said you would be from the start . After i asked ... you skipped commenting on the original point of this thread , you started with the second thing i said .
When it comes right down to it though Matthew, there can never be any conclusive proof - short of a signed note from George Bush saying "I started this war over oil". Even that'd get debated probably. It's all about opinions. People way up the likely reasons for a war, and decide what they believe to be the most likely motivation of a government. To most of us here, it seems blindingly obvious that this war was about oil. If you want information, I'm not sure what you're asking for. All the facts are in front of you. Yes, but you didn't take a quote at all. You took a small part of a quote out of context. Well... umm.. yeah! You'd think the secretary geneal of the UN would know a thing or two about international law. I'm going to skip straight to one of your next points..... See the link? And again.... There's two possibilities here. Either you're sneeringly dismissing an opinion, or else you're stupid. I've explained to you in great detail why I don't think the war in Iraq was justified. If you're too stupid to understand the points I've made, then that's fair enough. The other alternative is that you're sneeringly dismissing those views out of hand. Which is another reason I have no respect for your opinions. Which brings me neatly to the next point. Your opinion isn't respected because you don't respect the opinions of others. Not at all. But then you're the one who's turning an off-the-cuff comment into a debate. Not me. And what would that be exaclty, Matthew? Intelligent? Capable of well-reasoned debate? Ready to deploy a bullet-proof argument at a moments notice (or should that be 45 mins? )? Yes, I take your point. What the fuck are you droning on about?!? You just asked if I though Blair should apologise. I pointed out that I've already explained my position on that. Who cares when the fuck I explained it? What the hell has that got to do with the question? Are you mentally challenged or something?!?
Like we both agree its an opinion . does not make it so.. His opinion is not realy what i am talking about .. if you don't realise what i am talking about fine..hopefuly some did..i don't realy think it needs explaing again . assume (erm well you may already think..hahaha ) i am stupid i can't see the end of my nose , and i need (like i keep asking for) a small crumb of information that in some part made you think it was about oil.. the links i gave yesterday show IMHO its not all as greed/oil based as you may want. To me its blindly obvious that this is the perfect theory to think if you don't care for Mr Bush and co . I'm going to skip straight to one of your next points..... I am asking questions and asking for help ..not sneering at anything ..gee whiz shall we say i started it because i was the first too post ?? well let me say a vast proportion of what you have posted is the way i post not realy about what i post ,is that fair unfair we could be here alnight i guess so , i don't worry about it...you have not answered a lot of what i have asked but again you will say you have and we again could be here all night . i will skip over that and move onto I am droning on about the fact that you did not originaly comment on the actual topic of this thread yourself at first and that when you posted you commented on the other thing i had to say and not on the actual point that i did not think Mr Blair should apologise..i just brought it up again because i thought you may have forgot what the the point of this thread was...mm ok that may be a bit sneering of me
I agree. But it's a very well-informed opinion. But you insist on taking comments out of context and ignoring what prompted them. You were complaining that people used Kofi Annan's words to add credance to the notion of the war being illegal. This is what I was responding to. It's perfectly valid for people to use his words in this context, because he's an authority on the subject. I agree that this doesn't constitute conclusive proof, but it's certainly valid to refer to the secretary general's opinion as further evidence of the illegality of the war. You seem to believe that people dislike Blair and Bush, and all else flows from this. What you don't seem to understand is that for many of us, the war in Iraq is why we don't care for Blair and Bush. For many of us, the very fact that America has failed to provide any sensible explanation for the war in Iraq is strong evidence in itself that it's about oil. If you really need more information, surely you don't need me to provide it? The internet's positivley overflowing with information on this subject. For example, here's a link from the Washington Post from 2002 that covers some of the points: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14¬Found=true More interestingly, to get some idea of just how important oil supplies are to America, try entering "peak oil" into a search engine and checking out some of the hits. Asking a question is fine. The example here is sneering sarcasm. Maybe you honestly don't understand how you sound. If so, give it some thought. I agree. If you could try and show a little more respect for people who hold different opinions, then you'd get a lot further. Fine. Tell me specifically what you've asked that I have allegedly not answered. Uhhh.... so what? If you say so. I just thought it failed to make sense in context.
well Dok' if you had said half of what you just said from the get go , then we would not be at logger heads or anything...like i knew we would end up at. you i think can see what i am saying and understand what i mean ...lambasting how i say it is realy odd..if it makes no sense so what ..if nobody understands so what if they do good. Its not realy your place to take me to one side and give me the third degree is it. If i am not on your intelectual/well informed level so what , come down a peg or 2 ignore how i say things and if you wish just answer what i am saying ....like you just have in part. I am as sneering and arrogant as yourself probaly.. but i doubt it , adding gee whiz was out of frustration not sarcasm or anything like that. so maybe YOU honestly don't understand how YOU sound , give it some thought.
