|
Post by JT on Apr 20, 2004 15:17:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 20, 2004 17:11:38 GMT -5
Thanks JT.
I think that article reads with a definite bias in favor of Negroponte, but probably not as fervently or as much of a bias as Molly Ivan's article against him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2004 17:57:22 GMT -5
BIG difference: Ivins piece was NOT an article. It was an opinion-piece.
I thought the AFP "article" was an odd bit of writing.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 21, 2004 13:36:23 GMT -5
Try to keep up, BiK. Especially when it's your own post I am responding to. Two separate points in your post and in my answer: 1) I claim we are not better off. You claim we are. How? Nice use of words there (R)uffda to try and mask your text. You did more than claim we are not better off, you said "WE are WORSE off" because Bush surrounds himself with Reagan "neo-cons". I challenged you to explain how WE are worse off and you failed the challenge. You still have not explained how WE are worse off. You claimed that Bush has no credibility, I say America is safer because he does. Bush takes action, he doesn't sit on his hands waiting for a UN green light to do what is best for America. Those that plot against our Country know that there will be a price to pay with the "neo cons" in control. We are better off because we are safer. 2) You claim I am just dishing out subjective items. I listed three which are pretty damned objective. I said subjective statement, not subjective items. This is a subjective statement...... "Regardless, the whole point is that W continues to surround himself with the Reagan neo-cons. And WE are all the worse off for it." What does this........ 1) No WMD 2) No being greeted as liberators 3) No connection to al Qaeda or 9/11 Have to do with this "WE are all the worse off for it." How are we worse of because of....... 1) No WMD 2) No being greeted as liberators 3) No connection to al Qaeda or 9/11 ?
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 21, 2004 13:51:17 GMT -5
Although that was not my point in listing those three items, I can answer that question. We went to war, we said, with the Neo-cons making all three of those claims. All have been proven false. Not subjective. Fact. If we go to war, unilaterally, our reasons had damned well better be well-founded. They were not. The result? The world is not united against the real threat. The Arab world is even more hostile toward us. The extremists have even more targets. The U.S., Bush at least, has ZERO credibility. That's just for starters. Want more? The world has never been united against the real threat. Many Nations throughout the world are still involved in the war on terror, nobody has dropped out under protest. The Arab world has been hostile to America ever since America allied itself with Israel. Aside from Iraq itself what new targets do the extremists have that they didn't have before? Bush may have "zero" credibilty among certain individuals around the world but he has unyielding credibility to those that appreciate what he is doing to protect their freedom by vanquishing those that wish to rob us of it. America doesn't need "damn good" well founded reasons to go to war unilaterally. Who does America have to answer to? the UN?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2004 19:38:07 GMT -5
See? I answer your stupid questions and you still don't understand.
It's like trying to teach a dog to tapdance!
;D
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 22, 2004 13:16:59 GMT -5
America doesn't need "damn good" well founded reasons to go to war unilaterally. Who does America have to answer to? the UN? Franky, as a member country we certainly DO answer to UN. Haven't we pledged as a member country to abide by their rules? Especially, in declaring war against another member country? Since you don't want the US to be held accountable to the UN I guess that means you advocate that we remove ourselves form the UN and forcefully evict everyone involved with the UN from US soil and turn down the UN building(s) into corporate offices or a nifty shopping mall?
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 22, 2004 14:23:39 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1082400368&start=36#2 date=1082657819] Franky, as a member country we certainly DO answer to UN. Haven't we pledged as a member country to abide by their rules? Especially, in declaring war against another member country? The fact that Iraq under Hussein was a UN member just shows how much of a joke the United Nations is. The US acted inspite of the protests of the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese. Does America answer to the UN? Nah. >-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1082400368&start=36#2 date=1082657819] Since you don't want the US to be held accountable to the UN I guess that means you advocate that we remove ourselves form the UN and forcefully evict everyone involved with the UN from US soil and turn down the UN building(s) into corporate offices or a nifty shopping mall? That's a great Idea. Move the UN to Montreal for all I care.
|
|