Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy'

reply to post by Bunch


I say just implode it any leave it that way. It's useless.

reply to post by danwild6


Strangely that's exactly what they're feeling, and for the same reason.

When a nation that endorses aggressive wars of conquest, slavery, torture, foreign coups to spread its ideology, targets hospitals and homes in its wars, mangles and abandons its own soldiers, and favors criminals over innocents declares me an enemy, i'm going to be happy with that declaration, too.

reply to post by Bunch


The UN is corrupt because we designed it that way. When any one of five nations can vote "no" on anything and kill any idea that coems across, how can it be anything BUT useless? And of course any of those five will vote against removing this privilege...

Regardless of the UN, I firmly believe that we need a world governing body to settle disputes, mediate, allow or disallow armed intervention and to help less fortunate nations and their citizens.

The UN is not doing this, but this doesn't mean it doesn't need doing.

At the moment though it's the best we've got.

reply to post by Sublime620


They were our no fly zones, not theirs. We established them at the end of Desert Storm, due to Saddam brutally cracking down on Kurd and Shia that were in opposition to him. Bush Sr. left them flapping though when he encouraged them to rise up against Saddam, and then didn't give them protection.

reply to post by Sublime620


The argument was preemptive self defense, and that's why varying legal scholars were in disagreement.

reply to post by budski


So if I disagree with you it's trolling? And I'm accused of holding an arrogant viewpoint. If everything was as black and white as you seem to think, there'd be no debate amongst legal scholars, and there would be UN sanctions/resolutions etc.... I shall patiently awate the evidence that proves that my position is impossible arrive at.

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by budski

 

No disagreements there, the US and the UK should be setting the example.

But the UN is a corrupt institution, how can sanctions be imposed and the institution in charge of overseeing them has cronies benefiting from those sanctions. And not only officials from the UN were taking bribes through the OFF program, other UN countries were having deals with Iraq despite sanctions that impeded them from doing so.

The UN is corrupt. Just implode the thing and start over again.

Now this I agree with. The UN's only useful function is mediating conflicts, and humanitarian issues. Aside from that it is completely useless.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by budski

 

So if I disagree with you it's trolling? And I'm accused of holding an arrogant viewpoint. If everything was as black and white as you seem to think, there'd be no debate amongst legal scholars, and there would be UN sanctions/resolutions etc.... I shall patiently awate the evidence that proves that my position is impossible arrive at.

The evidence has been provided and has been shown to be beyond doubt, yet you still keep repeating the same questions without recourse to or acknowledgement of answers and information provided, in the hope that people will get tired of repeating themselves, so that you will seem to win the argument by default - this is trolling.

You have consistently denied points made whilst providing no evidence (other than wrong evidence) whilst others have provided sources and evidence which clearly show the validity and correctness of arguments made by them - this is trolling.

You have contributed little of anything except "I don't believe it" and have shown a level of contempt for respected sources, journals and institutions that beggars belief - this is trolling.

Your attempt to introduce anecdotal evidence is flawed, as you provide no other evidence to back up anecdotes - anyone can say "I was there, so I know" it's not evidence, it's another form of trolling.


Provide evidence that refutes statements made, refutes sources, documents, journals, institutes and eyewitness statements and I will listen.
Nothing of this sort has been provided by you - your reaction to a news report quoting veterans was to call them liars, with no evidence other than "I don't believe it" - more trolling.

Need any more definitions?

I suspect you will, judging by the way you do not appear to have read anything contrary to your "opinion" - opinion which you continue to attempt to pass off as fact, contrary to the T&C.

reply to post by budski


When my personal experience doesn't coincide with another source, then I'm gonna rely on what I've seen. Whether you trust me or not has no bearing on whether I believe something to be true or not. What you've provided is evidence that you find credible, and relied on to formulate your opinions. There's a big difference between that, and something being an unassailable fact. What you haven't done is provide evidence that would cause me to change my views(which I have arrived at based upon what I have experienced). Just because you're frustrated that I haven't been convinced that your viewpoint is accurate, doesn't constitute trolling on my part.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Actually it does.

As I said previously, a child saying "I don't like vegetables" having never tasted them is not a valid argument.

Putting forth your opinion as fact is also not a valid argument.

You have maintained throughout this thread, that the John Hopkins Institute, The Lancet and many other highly respected sources are wrong and only your OPINION is correct - I find that astoundingly arrogant, not to mention puerile.

Hey, if you don't understand, or lack the wit to engage in proper debate thats fine, no shame in that - but I WILL NOT join in while you persist in trolling - any further answer that is off topic, is only opinion (and not mentioned as such) or is just trollish in general and I'll pop you on ignore.

I don't want to, but you offer nothing to the discussion except raising my points total - and I don't need them that badly.

reply to post by budski


I'm not the only one claiming that the Lancet and John's Hopkins numbers are dubious. You still have yet to explain the levels of violence necessary to arrive at those numbers. If that hasn't occurred, then their numbers can't be correct. To get those numbers, you'd have to have daily mass casualty attacks of a magnitude far beyond what has been seen, in areas of high population density. There'd be witnesses to this level of violence. Please explain how all these people are getting killed/buried without anyone's knowledge, and perhaps we can start getting somewhere.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Have you read them?

The arrogance of that statement is beyond belief.

You're now on ignore.



[edit on 25/1/2008 by budski]

reply to post by budski


So you can't answer my question then? How is it arrogant to find 2 sources reporting figures far higher than every other source's guesstimates questionable, especially since their numbers don't jive with what can be accounted for by violent events? You're not analyzing the reports using logic.

reply to post by BlueRaja


2 sources???
have you actually read anything?

the arrogance is saying that you know more about a situation that some of the most respected institutes in the world.

I'm fed up of this trolling

reply to post by budski


Okay, let's forget about the reports and deal strictly with the violence. Can you answer that part of my question?

reply to post by BlueRaja


it's been answered - on numerous occasions

reply to post by budski


Could you humor me, and show me where the levels of violence that would produce 600,000 to 1.2 million dead, have been observed? On the high end, that'd be 25,000 KIA per month, since we've been there, and 12,500 on the low end. That level of violence has simply not been observed. If you believe me to be in error on this, please refute it and show where I'm wrong. It's rare that an attack even produces 100 casualties in a single day, much less 400-800 every single day. There simply aren't enough attacks per day to reach those numbers if the remainder is made up in one-sies and two-sies.

reply to post by BlueRaja


It's been answered - on numerous occasions

reply to post by budski


So if I use that response you won't accuse me of trolling then? If it's so well documented, it shouldn't be hard to provide a couple links right, just so I can see the error of my ways?