Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > "That's a violation of the Geneva Convention." - R
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: "That's a violation of the Geneva Convention." - R Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Mar 30th, 2003 06:16 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
WHERE WERE THE PROTESTS WHEN CLINTON BOMBED CIVILAIN TARGETS IN IRAQ AND IN KOSOVO???? PLEASE ANSWER!!!
They were there, just not in this kind of magnitude. There's a lot of factors involved in this. The most important, and the most obvious for those who are older than 2 and without any kind of mental retardation, is that IT'S TWO DIFFERENT FUCKING THINGS!! WE WERE NOT HOLDING A FULL SCALE INVASION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY INTENT ON COMPLETELY OVERTHROWING ANOTHER REGIME!!!

Secondly, the connections are much more shady. Milosevich was blatantly and consistenly commiting genocide. While Saddam's regime is (was) just as rotten and oppressive, it wasn't done in the same fashion. Also, why are we going to war? To end terrorism? To liberate Iraq? To "save" the Middle East from its backward self? For oil? The objectives are much more unclear in this war, period.

Quote:
IT WAS NO DIFFERENT WHEN THE PROTESTS STARTED 6 MONTHS AGO!! HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT!!!
What are you talking about?

Quote:
It's different now because the Iraqi people are being liberated as a result of us protecting our national security.
So I guess all the other folks living under such regimes just need to start blowing up American buildings before anybody cares enough to "liberate" them, right?

Quote:
No I don't. Because it's not my analyzation that's in question. It's a questio og Saddam's interpretation. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? When he sees people on t.v. burning the American flag and protesting the U.S. while saying NOTHING about what he's doing wrong, it looks like support for him. It has nothing to do with ME. It's between YOU and HIM.
You're a fool. And when you go buy gas, without acknowleding that we buy oil from oppressive, rotten regimes, you in fact are silently condoning that practice. Right?

Quote:
The civilian population will start to leave Baghdad when the fighting starts there. Therefore making it harder for these people to blend in.
Providing the Guard doesn't start shooting people and keeping them there (I honestly have no clue what's going on, I've been out of the loop the past few days).


Quote:
EXACTLY!!! Blix is an idiot who couldn't find what he was looking for. Why? Well, mostly because that's not the job of the inspectors. Every nation knows he has them.....why do his troops have chemical suits and remedies for chemical and bio exposure?
Blix was your hero when it fit the context, I'm sure.

Maybe they have fears of us using illegal crowd control nerve gases, like our military hinted at doing? I dunno, you tell me. Either way, we'll never know now, since the facade of a weapons inspection was shaemfully used by the Bush administration to go to war. It took 3 years for the team to be comiled. We gave them a little over three months. NO weapons inspection has gone that long and been expected to succeed. It was a hoax all along.


Quote:
I have no love for the U.N. You are right. When it suits our purpose, I think we should use it as a tool just like every other country does.
Maintaining that moral high ground, I see......


Quote:
Why not? What difference does that make? Does Geneva not apply there?
Look at how men have been treated in Pakistan, with OUR awareness, and tell me if Geneva applies there. I'll bet Geneva applies to throwing men in holes in Cuba, too.

Quote:
"Would we be doing this if 1. 9/11 had not happened, a 2. there were no natural resources there? - Kevin

Probably not.
Right, so this isn't about Iraqi freedom. Thanks for your honesty.

Quote:
"When does the liberation of Sudan start? How about the liberation of Qatar, our alllies? How about Pakistan? North Korea? the Kurds? China?" - Kevin

When we have a security interest there.


So should it be called "Operation Iraqi Freedom, of course, only if it's in our interest, otherwise, fuck 'em" ????

You're quite the humanitarian, Ronnie.
Mar 28th, 2003 01:03 PM
Protoclown "I'm a piss poor example of what Christianity should be" -- Ronnie Raygun

Just playing the game, folks. Just playing the game.
Mar 28th, 2003 10:04 AM
sspadowsky Yes, it was, wasn't it?
________
LovelyWendie99
Mar 28th, 2003 10:02 AM
Ronnie Raygun Good come back, Spad.
Mar 28th, 2003 09:33 AM
sspadowsky
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Yes, they broke laws that they agreed to after Gulf War I. See, that is the problem with you people that try to dismiss off my ideals. The problem is, they are right. You just dont like the messenger. Which only proves my point about you who won't directly debate the points made.

Disregarding me and people like me wont make the truth not the truth anymore.
Wow. Them are the most intelligent sentences I ever done saw you talk in.
________
Mexico City Hotels
Mar 28th, 2003 09:27 AM
sspadowsky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
"but of more importance i think is that they are executing POWs"

HA!

You think spad cares. He thinks it proves his point.

"That's what they get for being there" - Spad
Kindly point out when and where I said that. Asshole. I've said time and again that I want our troops to come home in one piece. My beef is with the actions of the Bush Administration, not the troops. How dare you put words like that in my mouth? Besides, you're the one who approves of torture, buddy. It seems your ignorance truly knows no bounds.
________
Iolite vaporizer website
Mar 28th, 2003 09:10 AM
VinceZeb Yes, they broke laws that they agreed to after Gulf War I. See, that is the problem with you people that try to dismiss off my ideals. The problem is, they are right. You just dont like the messenger. Which only proves my point about you who won't directly debate the points made.

Disregarding me and people like me wont make the truth not the truth anymore.
Mar 28th, 2003 07:50 AM
Ronnie Raygun "but of more importance i think is that they are executing POWs"

HA!

You think spad cares. He thinks it proves his point.

"That's what they get for being there" - Spad
Mar 27th, 2003 09:25 PM
Jeanette X
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellychaos
BTW, check your attitude at the door when someone's asking a sincere question. There's no need to be insulting and I know that you're more intelligent than some of these other "jerk offs" in this forum.
Thank you for standing up for me kellychaos.
Mar 27th, 2003 05:49 PM
ItalianStereotype
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspadowsky
190 kilometers? OH MY GOD! ANOTHER 10,000 KILOMETERS, AND THEY MIGHT BE HITTING OUR SHORES! CLEARLY THEY ARE A DIRECT THREAT TO US AFTER ALL!
no, but they are within firing range of our allies. besides, these terms were laid out in 687 right after the first gulf war, i would appreciate it if you wouldnt try to dismiss me as you would vincezeb....

but of more importance i think is that they are executing POWs...
Mar 27th, 2003 05:34 PM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
" The differences between the two are actually rather obvious. North Korea did not prosecute a war on its neighbor, regardless of whatever provocation was given.
The Korean War was halted by an cease-fire, not a treaty. There is still an actively patroled DMZ and, technically, the two countries are still at war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
"
Secondly, it did not choose aggressive action against the U.N. coalition and then refuse to abide by the peace agreement that it agreed to.
North Korea involved itself in an act of agression about fifty years ago. Iraq did the same about twelve years ago. Both have a basic disregard for U.N. policy and are not above publicly thumbing it's nose at them. Hmmm ... then again ... so do we. :/ Apart from the amount of time between their last act of aggression, they're both doing the same type of thing, really. North Korea just puts up a better bluff or maybe they just scare us more because there's conjecture that they may have intercontinental missle capability. So basically the bottom line is: Iraq really is not that big a threat and they are bad liars about it. They don't scare us so we're going to kick their ass. North Korea is a better poker player and possibly a bigger threat with a better trained/oraganized army that scares us so that we choose not to try and kick it's ass. Well ... that's the way I see it anyway.

BTW, check your attitude at the door when someone's asking a sincere question. There's no need to be insulting and I know that you're more intelligent than some of these other "jerk offs" in this forum.
Mar 27th, 2003 04:03 PM
FS Haha, that's an amusing quote. Are these the same evildoers the US put out there themselves? You know, sorta like target practice?
Mar 27th, 2003 03:18 PM
Jeanette X
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Those two factors along with a sence of justice and servitiude to have freedom is the reason the United Staes of America is a free country and has destroyed world-wide evil doers since its existance.
What about the Shah of Iran?
Mar 27th, 2003 02:27 PM
sspadowsky 190 kilometers? OH MY GOD! ANOTHER 10,000 KILOMETERS, AND THEY MIGHT BE HITTING OUR SHORES! CLEARLY THEY ARE A DIRECT THREAT TO US AFTER ALL!
________
Vaporizer Review
Mar 27th, 2003 02:11 PM
ItalianStereotype http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/27/spr...ted/index.html

they have also fired missiles ranging 190 kilometers, a clear violation of resolutions 687 and 1441.
Mar 27th, 2003 08:52 AM
Ronnie Raygun "Your naive and ignorant if you DON'T believe people like myself have held, and maintain criticism of Clinton's foreign policies. - Kevin

WHERE WERE THE PROTESTS WHEN CLINTON BOMBED CIVILAIN TARGETS IN IRAQ AND IN KOSOVO???? PLEASE ANSWER!!!

"But the fact remains that this is different than Kosovo, it's different than Desert Fox, and it's even different than the FIRST Gulf War." - Kevin

IT WAS NO DIFFERENT WHEN THE PROTESTS STARTED 6 MONTHS AGO!! HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT!!!

"Your unwillingness to acknowledge this only proves how blinded you are by your desire to see this war. - Kevin

It's different now because the Iraqi people are being liberated as a result of us protecting our national security.

"I disagree completely, because unlike yourself, many opposing the war can think and analyze on multiple levels. It's like saying "if you buy gas, you support terrorism." As cute and amusing as that line is, it's not all that true, and far too simplistic, wouldn't you agree?"

No I don't. Because it's not my analyzation that's in question. It's a questio og Saddam's interpretation. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? When he sees people on t.v. burning the American flag and protesting the U.S. while saying NOTHING about what he's doing wrong, it looks like support for him. It has nothing to do with ME. It's between YOU and HIM.

"Like Choimp said, maybe Iraq has decided American soldiers don't "count" in terms of Geneva. - Kevin

If they do, they are wrong.

"Saddam's "best" troops have pulled back to Baghdad, they will do ANYTHING, I have no doubt." - Kevin

Wrong, secret police thugs are in Baghdad while the best troops are in Baghdad.

"They will use civilians, they will play very, VERY dirty. It will be nearly impossible I think to get them without causing a considerable amount of damage." - Kevin

The civilian population will start to leave Baghdad when the fighting starts there. Therefore making it harder for these people to blend in.

"1441? Cuz of the SCUDS that haven't been fired? Because of the WMD that haven't been found? Cuz of the bio-weapons and the gasses that haven't been found?" - Kevin

EXACTLY!!! Blix is an idiot who couldn't find what he was looking for. Why? Well, mostly because that's not the job of the inspectors. Every nation knows he has them.....why do his troops have chemical suits and remedies for chemical and bio exposure?

"You hate the UN, and you likewise could care less if we abided by their decisions. The new found love and respect for the "sanctity" of the UN and global treaties is a joke. Youuse it for your own personal advantage now." - Kevin

I have no love for the U.N. You are right. When it suits our purpose, I think we should use it as a tool just like every other country does.


"Why lock men up in Cuba? Why interogate men IN Pakistan?" - Kevin

Why not? What difference does that make? Does Geneva not apply there?

"Would we be doing this if 1. 9/11 had not happened, a 2. there were no natural resources there? - Kevin

Probably not.

"When does the liberation of Sudan start? How about the liberation of Qatar, our alllies? How about Pakistan? North Korea? the Kurds? China?" - Kevin

When we have a security interest there.

"If you are anti-war you're this, if you're pro-war your that. You should write for Sesame Street."

If I did, you still wouldn't be able to comprehend it
Mar 27th, 2003 08:02 AM
VinceZeb They cant explain it. I'll just go ahead and answer it for you: No Blood for Oil is a perfect liberal mantra. 1) It fits on a bumper sticker, which is the extent of liberal evidence and brain power. 2) The question on a base level answers itself, but when you ask these protester to show evidence or proof to anything, you are nothing but a facist warmonger.

Man, I could go on for days, but it wont answer the question fully at hand.
Mar 26th, 2003 03:40 PM
The_Rorschach Assume I'm a complete and other shitwit, not far from the truth, and explain to me the connection between government action and Saddam's oil. As to date, I have only heard the most tenuous ties made between the two.
Mar 26th, 2003 03:31 PM
mburbank Actually, my answer was completely serious. The UN is a difficult, fractious, unwieldy tool, but it's the only tool out there. For any action to take place, ENORMOUS pressure has to be brought to bare. A good example was the invasion of Kuwait.


The difference between That and Rawanda and Yugolsavia is spelled O-I-L.

Just becuase you didn;t understnd me, don't assume I didn't mean something.

And Shach. I repectfully disagree. I think the major differences between North Korea and Iraq are that North Korea has nuclear weapons and a capable army strategically placed and does not have oil. We can't beat the crap out of them as easily as we do Iraq, and there are no spoils to be had.
Mar 26th, 2003 12:23 AM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
I'm only reporting what Blix said. I have always thought the guy was useless and stupid. He knows nothing about weapons, and is not the guy I would want inspecting someting he knows nothing about.
You specificaly threw him into your sentence to add credibility, and when you found out that he has said something to the contrary, you demonized him. Heh.

Quote:
But the problem is that you are not arguing what the man said, you are only trying to discredit me.
You do a fine job of that on your own.

You said he said something, I showed he said otherwise. Nothing devious, nothing deceptive, pretty straight forward point-counter point.
Mar 25th, 2003 02:17 AM
VinceZeb Max once again avoids the serious question that I propose to him about his precious U.N. Wow.
Mar 24th, 2003 07:25 PM
AChimp Or, you know, they might all wanna set a few off so they can glow in the dark.
Mar 24th, 2003 05:41 PM
The_Rorschach "N. Korea is a threat, definetely has WMD, and represses its people. Why aren't we at war with them also for those reasons?"

If you don't know the answer to this one, you shouldn't be an active participant in these conversations. The differences between the two are actually rather obvious. North Korea did not prosecute a war on its neighbor, regardless of whatever provocation was given. Secondly, it did not choose aggressive action against the U.N. coalition and then refuse to abide by the peace agreement that it agreed to. Thirdly, diplomacy between Kin Jung Il and the U.N. is more than a possibility, it is a reality. Talks are underway currently to discuss whether nuclear arms in Korea will be allowed, and if disallowed, what will be offered in return to mitigate factors.

Unlike Iraq, which stockpiled weapons as a reality, North Korea is merely building the capabilities to create nuclear and ballistic warheads. Why, and why do so publically? It's believed by many, and I am one, that it is a facade being utilized in order to strengthen bargaining tactics which will grant North Korea with better trade options and pump their staggering economy and maybe even see to it that their citizens can eat at least once day.
Mar 24th, 2003 05:14 PM
Jeanette X
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
The War on Iraq has two purposes which have been told to everyone: 1) to disarm Saddam which we have every right to do according to the U.N. (I bring this up so someone doesnt talk about the legality of the war. I hate the U.N. but Ill use their weapons agains them) and 2) to liberate Iraq.
N. Korea is a threat, definetely has WMD, and represses its people. Why aren't we at war with them also for those reasons?
Mar 24th, 2003 04:03 PM
mburbank Nobody gives a screw about darkies and unibrowed eastern euros who don't have any oil in the first place, so it didn't seriously come up.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:24 PM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.