One Final Thought

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Before I retire for the night & have to work my fat ass off tomorrow I'd like to leave our expanding peacenics with this thought.

A gun doesn't smoke until AFTER it's fired.:dance:
 
:hairbang:

ps. Sorry I wasn't here to help. I swear I wasn't out hugging trees or nothing.
 
It really amazes me how the left loves to fight for the rights of Saddam to own and create nuclear weapons and to terrorize that area of the middle east, but as soon as a law-abiding citizen wants to get a firearm to defend herself or himself, they go ape.
 
Jerrek said:
It really amazes me how the left loves to fight for the rights of Saddam to own and create nuclear weapons and to terrorize that area of the middle east, but as soon as a law-abiding citizen wants to get a firearm to defend herself or himself, they go ape.
Click to expand...

What really amazes me is how truly clueless you prove yourself to be time and time again.

Let's take your BS apart piece by piece since it won't take much effort.

It really amazes me how the left
Click to expand...

As of a poll I saw yesterday 68% of America was against war with Iraq without UN support.,,,only 30% favored war without UN support. Now unless 68% is on "the left" I think it's fair to say that war is not really a left-right issue. Of course I'm sure there's some blind followers in that 30% that would support Bush if he decided to invade Canada.

Now onward I go.

fight for the rights of Saddam to own and create nuclear weapons and to terrorize that area of the middle east
Click to expand...

More BS that's easy enough to shoot down. These 68% are not fighting for Sadam's rights. They are suggesting getting the UN on our side, increasing the number of inspectors, exile Sadam, or a number of alternatives besides the US jumping into a war with Iraq right now.

but as soon as a law-abiding citizen wants to get a firearm to defend herself or himself, they go ape.
Click to expand...

I guarantee that many of this 68% are even gun owners themselves.

Now go away.
 
whered you get the info from jerrek? just because were against war we are not pro sadam. we just dont like war. there are other alternatives as flavio said. pt of course you werent hugging the trees you tree humper ;).


it amazes me how myopic some people can be.
 
Neville Chamberlain
He succeeded Stanley Baldwin as prime minister in 1937 and the appeasement years were upon Britain. In an attempt to forestall a general European war, Chamberlain travelled to Germany three times in September 1938, as Germany demanded the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. As Germany's demands increased throughout the month of September, Chamberlain recommended the convening of a four-power conference. On 29th September, Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier of France and Mussolini of Italy met in Munich to agree upon a plan that would remove the Germany army by 10th October.
Chamberlain left Munich with a declaration signed by Hitler that assured peace. The prime minister returned home happy, believing that he had achieved "peace with honour. I believe it is peace in our time".
Six months later, Hitler would disregard the agreement with the annexation of Czechoslovakia and later with the invasion of Poland in September of 1939. Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was seen as a failure by many at the time, and for many years to follow.
Click to expand...
Chamberlain confronted the threat to peace posed by Germany and Italy. Seeking to appease Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, he first negotiated a treaty with Italy accepting the conquest of Ethiopia on condition that Italy withdraw from the Spanish Civil War. Turning to the Czech question, Chamberlain conferred with Hitler and Mussolini. In the Munich pact (1938), signed also by France, Chamberlain accepted Hitler's territorial claims to predominantly German areas of Czechoslovakia. Though Chamberlain assured Britain that his concession had brought "peace in our time, Hitler soon broke his agreement and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia.
After Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, Chamberlain honored a pledge to stand by Poland and led Britain into war two days later. Although his policies were discredited, he held on as prime minister until May 1940, when he resigned and was succeeded by Winston Churchill.
Click to expand...

in a letter written to George VI on Sept 6, 1938
Chamberlain said:
Developments seem very slow and I am afraid that we may have to wait another week or even more before we can speak with confidence about the issue. All the same I have a 'hunch' that we shall get through this time without the use of force. Hitler cannot say that no progress is being made and the general opinion of the world would be more shocked than ever if Runciman's efforts were to be rudely interrupted before it could be established that they had failed. Even if things looked more threatening than they do at the moment I should not despair for I don't think we have fired the last shot in our locker.
Click to expand...

Do any of these sound familiar? Notice the involved parties. Can we afford to wait & appease again?
 
Sorry, this picture is just so cool :D I laughed so hard when I saw it.

Sheep-B.gif
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department advised nonessential U.S. diplomats and family members on Friday to leave Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Private U.S. citizens also were advised to leave those countries and Americans were cautioned not to travel to Israel.



At the same time, the department urged Americans to stay away from Iraq and said it was closing the Polish office in Baghdad that provided consular service to Americans in the absence of U.S. relations with Iraq.

U.S. citizens in Iraq were urged to leave.
Click to expand...
 
flavio said:
As of a poll I saw yesterday 68% of America was against war with Iraq without UN support.,,,only 30% favored war without UN support
Click to expand...

UP the stakes

Washington Post said:
According to the poll, a clear majority now support taking action against Iraq within the next few weeks, rather than waiting a few months or longer to make a final decision about going to war, as France and other U.S. allies have urged.

A total of 504 randomly selected adults were interviewed Wednesday night for this washingtonpost.com-ABC News survey. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 5 percentage points. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represent additional potential sources of error in this poll

Overall, more than six in 10 Americans-61 percent-believe that the Bush administration has made the case for war, up from 54 percent in a survey conducted last week after the president's State of the Union address.

But the survey also found that Powell's speech did not immediately increase public sentiment for launching a war with Iraq or deepen support among those who favor using military force. Two in three continue to favor attacking Iraq, with slightly fewer than half of the country "strongly" supporting a military option, unchanged from last week. About half continue to support war, even if the United Nations Security Council opposes taking action.
Click to expand...
 
Well two days ago I saw a stat on tv that said 68% with UN support 30% without UN support. Got any updates for the UN support thing?

I could be in your "NOW YES 70%" thing if we could ever manage to get a nice case presented to the UN and convince them.
 
That's why I'm having trouble. Why does it matter whether the UN is involved or not? Yes, it woud be preferable, costs & manpower would be lower, but somebody has to take a strand & we are ready, willing & able. If the whole world ran scared he'd be more dangerous than he is now. As Bush said yesterday, time's up. Shit or git.
 
Why don't we just pull out a poll from 1993 and read it to ourselves like its current? It worked for Powell....:tardbang:
 
another thing: polls. We can pull numbers out of the air all day to prove our case & disprove the other case but even the polls are confusing. An example:
"Who do you trust more to make the right decisions regarding Iraq: the Bush Administration or the United Nations?" Options were rotated. Form A (N=504, MoE ± 5)

Bush UN Both Equally(vol.) Neither (vol.) No Opinion
% % % % %
1/31 - 2/2/03 58 39 1 1 1
1/23-25/03 47 47 4 1 1
Click to expand...

They trust Bush more than the UN but this poll says UN
"Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The United States should take military action against Iraq only if that military action has the support of the United Nations Security Council."

Agree Disagree Don't Know
% % %
ALL 65 30 5
Democrats 79 14 7
Independents 69 28 3
Republicans 44 53 3
Men 61 35 4
Women 68 26 6
Click to expand...

while this poll says nyet, the US is enough
"Do you support or oppose U.S. military action to disarm Iraq and remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein?"
Support Oppose Not Sure
% % %
1/29-30/03 67 21 12
1/14-15/03 67 25 8
12/02 65 23 12
11/02 68 18 14
Click to expand...
 
I posted two links earlier that i will have to hunt up again I suppose. One showed that information presented to the UN that was supposed to be current intelligence was actually plagairised from a grad students paper.

The other one showed that the presence of a WMD site was actually not there at all according to allies of ours.

I will ferret out the links again but the point is the incompetence that was shown in presenting a case to the UN continues to eat at our credibility. If this was a criminal case in the US there wouldn't be a conviction.

Apparently the administration could use the services of a decent prosecuting attorney?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top