Reconciling assholes for nearly a decade.

Bush administration against unilateral action

http://www.cnn.com./2005/WORLD/asiapcf/03/07/china.npc.law/index.html

"Boucher said the United States objected to the resolution both because it was an attempt to solve the problem unilaterally and because it threatened non-peaceful means."


ahh, the rich, full taste of irony. soon america will be accusing china of ignoring world opinion and inventing spurious accusations against them to further their own agenda.

China is going to claim that taiwan is on the verge of possessing a weapons arsenal that could seriously threaten china as a nation, and that it intends to invade taiwan preemptively...


bush you fucking incompetent, lets discuss the importance of maintaining the moral highground.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 8th, 2005
So, let me get this straight. You are opposed to the recent flourishing of democracy in Iraq and are in favor of a Chinese takeover of Taiwan.

The stances some people adopt just for the sake of opposing Bush are unbelievable.
Permalink Cowboy coder 
March 9th, 2005
"You are opposed to the recent flourishing of democracy in Iraq and are in favor of a Chinese takeover of Taiwan."


yes, absolutely. I think thats exactly what I just said.

been brushing up on your english comprehension recently have you? ....if not, maybe its time you did...


"The stances some people adopt just for the sake of opposing Bush are unbelievable."

the ability of some people to totally fail to understand plain english is absolutely astounding.

...some mothers do have em though...
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 9th, 2005
Of course I don't think that's what you meant.

But when you write "ahh, the rich, full taste of irony," it appears as though you're happy that something bad is likely to happen just so you can find another reason to despise Bush.
Permalink Cowboy coder 
March 9th, 2005
Irony is to be enjoyed for its own sake.

But it always was one of the results that those that thought preemptive action a Genie that was unlikely to go back into the bottle and would be used by any other country as an excuse.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 9th, 2005
"Of course I don't think that's what you meant."

ahh, then you were being sarcastic? well done! your grasp of english is better than I expected from a bush voter.

"But when you write "ahh, the rich, full taste of irony," it appears as though you're happy that something bad is likely to happen just so you can find another reason to despise Bush."

right, so you dont; really; understand a whole bunch.

as simon above pointed out irony is a thing that can be enjoyed for its own sake very easily, surprisingly enough without necessarily enjoying much else.
I realise this requires a subtlety of understand that is probably beyond you though, perhaps youd like to go and read some comics and let the rest of us have an adult conversation?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 9th, 2005
Irony is rarely enjoyed for it's own sake. It's most often enjoyed in context, as in this case.

And, I think there's a huge difference between preemptive action backed by 17 UN resolutions (whether you accept that or not) that results in establishing a democratic government and preemptive action that results in a takeover of a country by a totalitarian government.
Permalink Cowboy coder 
March 9th, 2005
Anyone who thinks our unjustfied invasion of Iraq is responsible for democracy, also believes the 9-11 terrorists were justified because it forced America to act towards Mideast freedom.

Look at history.
"Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer

"Sooner or later, Mr. Bush argued, sanctions would force Mr. Hussein's generals to bring him down, and then Washington would have the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein." -- Thomas Friedman in New York Times, July 7, 1991

In 1991 and 1995, Bush and Clinton betrayed Iraqis who tried overthrowing Saddam, by authorizing him to crush them.


As for the UN resolutions, the US is known for not giving a whit about what the UN thinks. Watch this humorous bragging of how we used our veto power to unilaterally reject UN resolutions:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

In fact, the UN was even against our invasion this time around. "The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 9th, 2005
>>Anyone who thinks our unjustfied invasion of Iraq is responsible for democracy, also believes the 9-11 terrorists were justified because it forced America to act towards Mideast freedom.

I believe the first part (sans the "unjustified" modifer), but not the second part. Arguing that one must believe both is without merit.

Also:

- Bringing up Bush Sr.'s opinions prior to 10 years of Hussein's defiance of the UN is vacuous at best. Also, I'm not buying anything the friedman writes unless there are quotes around Bush Sr.'s statements. Friedman has a spotted history of bending the truth and twisting words to enforce his opinion.

- The US used its veto power to stand up for a stretegic ally. So what?

- Kofi Annan? You're quoting the leader of the most corrupt UN administration ever? the one use son is implicated in the Iraq Oil for Food Scandal? Please. If that guy leaned any more to the left he'd be walking sideways. And the fact that Annan calls the act illegal despite the previous UN resolutions authorizing force only goes to highlight the actual worth of UN resolutions - zero.

The UN has its place, but its not exactly a body of action is it? If it truly cared about humanitarianism, then there would be UN sanctions and calls for force against about 30 totalitarian nations worldwide. But for some reason it's considered more humanitarian to let a lot of people suffer and die in the long run than it is to let a smaller number suffer and die through the consequences of war.
Permalink Cowboy coder 
March 9th, 2005
No, you do believe the 9-11 attackers are justified. You know for a fact that bin Laden clamored for Mideast freedom, just as Bush did, and they were both willing to engage in unjustified attacks to catalyze that 'freedom.' And you also know that pre 9-11, Bush was engaging the War on Fat and held a record on vacation days.

I disagree with your points, because I think the 9-11 terrorists were unjustified no matter what their rhetoric was. I also disagree with sending soldiers, who are mostly poor, to get limbs blown off and die.

Now, earlier you cited the "17 UN resolutions" against Hussein. So if you now want to contradict yourself by saying Hussein was good because the UN is rotten, feel free.

I'm just curious whether you think the "liberal media" is also lying when they point out that "Halliburton operates in Iran despite sanctions," which "served the interests" of Iran:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7119752/
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 9th, 2005
And of course, as you replied above to FullNameRequired, "Of course I don't think that's what you meant." ;)
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 9th, 2005
"Irony is rarely enjoyed for it's own sake. It's most often enjoyed in context, as in this case."

LOL. I will enjoy irony in any way I see fit, thanks very much.


"And, I think there's a huge difference between preemptive action backed by 17 UN resolutions (whether you accept that or not)"


umm, what? the UN did *not* back the invasion of Iraq, saying that it did is just stupid. If your organisation makes some resolutions, but decides to delay acting on them.. and then I execute them, have I done the will of your organisation? clearly not.

"that results in establishing a democratic government and preemptive action that results in a takeover of a country by a totalitarian government."

clearly there are differences....but clearly there are similarities as well.
Both would be 'illegal' wars by the worlds standards, both are prompted cynically to allow the government in power to advance their own agenda, both required unilateral and preemptive action on the part of the aggressor.

your argument basically consists of "but our motivation was better" ...which is clearly a matter of opinion and belief anyway.

thats the 'subtle' point that you dont seem to get (and its not even that subtle really) ....the bottom line is that we invaded iraq because we could and because we wanted to. If china decides to behave in the same way then we look like a bunch of whinging, hypocritical swine if we use any argument other than
'do it and we'll wipe the floor with you" to try and stop them.
We have lost our...moral imperium(?) and replaced it with a fucking great tank.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 9th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics