Metabarca
Well-known member
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.comoy.com/saillinks.html>http://www.comoy.com/saillinks.html</A>
Excuse me, Mr President (non sailing)
- Thread starter Twister_Ken
- Start date
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.comoy.com/saillinks.html>http://www.comoy.com/saillinks.html</A>
Ohdrat
New member
that just about sums up the US's awareness of anything that isn't in the States. }
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
BrendanS
Well-known member
Re: Gloves off again ..
Your reaction is a little OTT, the question wasn't aimed at you, and as a lawyer I'm suprised you've never heard of this quote before.
It's often used to exemplify that there are some questions to which there are no black and white yes or no answers.
The question 'have you stopped beating your wife' if answered yes or no, would leave no other interpretation than that the respondent did or does. The logical answer would be to say, 'I have never beaten my wife' .
<hr width=100% size=1>
Your reaction is a little OTT, the question wasn't aimed at you, and as a lawyer I'm suprised you've never heard of this quote before.
It's often used to exemplify that there are some questions to which there are no black and white yes or no answers.
The question 'have you stopped beating your wife' if answered yes or no, would leave no other interpretation than that the respondent did or does. The logical answer would be to say, 'I have never beaten my wife' .
<hr width=100% size=1>
Sybarite
Well-known member
It is obvious that everyone feels very strongly on this subject and so I would like to add my various observations :
Listen to a BBC 5 Alive program on Saddam H. (You can hear it on the net) He started his 'political' career as the official assassin for his party. Observers say that he takes a saddistic pleasure in this.
He has killed many of his family relations and so-called friends.
Everybody know what he has done to the Kurd villages.
It is not a question of whether Saddam H has WMD or has had them. Resolution 1441 already stated that Iraq has or had them. It is not the duty of the Inspectors to find them but to inspect and have them destroyed. In a country larger than France can the relatively small team of inspectors reasonably be expected to find them? If Saddam produces 'documentary evidence' to support their destruction would you trust it? I wouldn't. Would you believe that scientists would tell the truth about WMD - even out of the country - if they (and their families) are under a death sentence if they release information?
People who say that we shouldn't get involved are forgetting about those who are suffering most : the Iraqi's themselves. It is a feature of recent UN activity that victims of agression have to reach such a level that political consciences no longer can turn a blind eye on what is happening before they intervene. Eg Bosnia and Somalia. How many people does Saddam have to kill before the level becomes intolerable for Western comfort levels?
It is unrealistic to expect the Iraqis themselves to rise against Saddam H. Anybody who shows the slightest resistance is killed. eg 300 schoolchildren between the age of 9 and 13 demonstrated; they were rounded up and were never seen again. Their clothes however were seen (by Iraqi defectors) in one of the torture chambers (ref: BBC 5 Alive).
People were raising exactly the same objections before the last attack on Iraq. Despite having the Iraqi army intact, it was over very quickly. He no longer has the same resources (but Western technology has moved on) and so I believe that if there were an attack it would again be over quickly.
People say also that this is all about petrol. And so...?? I don't believe it but even if it were so, economies are now so interdependent that no one country or group of countries can expect to sit on a vital resource on which other countries economies and their very ways of life depend without them reacting. Anybody who thinks that is not in the real world. ( I don't like Chirac but he once said very truly that "politics is the art of reconciling the ideal with the possible".) Just think what the world would be like if tomorrow there were no electricity.
I agree with the basic position of Bush but I believe he was completely inept in the way he went about - saying that he or the US - would lead a coalition against Iraq. This was like a red rag to bull, for somebody with Chirac's conceit. It is worth while remembering tat when 1441 was proposed it was Chirac who said at the timre that a second resolution was required before goping to war and that Bush and Blair said it wasn't necsssary. Funny how things change!
Suppose also that Saddam drags this out and finally destroys his WMD. What then? Do you leave him in power to start again? I think not.
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
Listen to a BBC 5 Alive program on Saddam H. (You can hear it on the net) He started his 'political' career as the official assassin for his party. Observers say that he takes a saddistic pleasure in this.
He has killed many of his family relations and so-called friends.
Everybody know what he has done to the Kurd villages.
It is not a question of whether Saddam H has WMD or has had them. Resolution 1441 already stated that Iraq has or had them. It is not the duty of the Inspectors to find them but to inspect and have them destroyed. In a country larger than France can the relatively small team of inspectors reasonably be expected to find them? If Saddam produces 'documentary evidence' to support their destruction would you trust it? I wouldn't. Would you believe that scientists would tell the truth about WMD - even out of the country - if they (and their families) are under a death sentence if they release information?
People who say that we shouldn't get involved are forgetting about those who are suffering most : the Iraqi's themselves. It is a feature of recent UN activity that victims of agression have to reach such a level that political consciences no longer can turn a blind eye on what is happening before they intervene. Eg Bosnia and Somalia. How many people does Saddam have to kill before the level becomes intolerable for Western comfort levels?
It is unrealistic to expect the Iraqis themselves to rise against Saddam H. Anybody who shows the slightest resistance is killed. eg 300 schoolchildren between the age of 9 and 13 demonstrated; they were rounded up and were never seen again. Their clothes however were seen (by Iraqi defectors) in one of the torture chambers (ref: BBC 5 Alive).
People were raising exactly the same objections before the last attack on Iraq. Despite having the Iraqi army intact, it was over very quickly. He no longer has the same resources (but Western technology has moved on) and so I believe that if there were an attack it would again be over quickly.
People say also that this is all about petrol. And so...?? I don't believe it but even if it were so, economies are now so interdependent that no one country or group of countries can expect to sit on a vital resource on which other countries economies and their very ways of life depend without them reacting. Anybody who thinks that is not in the real world. ( I don't like Chirac but he once said very truly that "politics is the art of reconciling the ideal with the possible".) Just think what the world would be like if tomorrow there were no electricity.
I agree with the basic position of Bush but I believe he was completely inept in the way he went about - saying that he or the US - would lead a coalition against Iraq. This was like a red rag to bull, for somebody with Chirac's conceit. It is worth while remembering tat when 1441 was proposed it was Chirac who said at the timre that a second resolution was required before goping to war and that Bush and Blair said it wasn't necsssary. Funny how things change!
Suppose also that Saddam drags this out and finally destroys his WMD. What then? Do you leave him in power to start again? I think not.
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
Observer
Active member
Re: Gloves off again ..
BrendanS, who (it appears) is not a lawyer, seems to have had no difficulty working out that my question was rhetorical (= requiring no answer [OED]), serving only to illustrate the sterility of your so called "philosophical" (more on which below) question.
In case you have difficulty understanding the illustration, the question you asked was clearly invented only for the purpose of casting the respondent in an unfavourable light (as is the case with "Have you stopped beating your wife?"). That this is so is self-evident from the fact that you then answered the question both ways and informed us of the exact conclusion you would draw from each answer. It is hard to think of a more striking example of prejudice (= preconceived opinion [OED]). This is not an attribute one would expect of a legally trained mind.
As for "philosophical" (= pursuit, study or love of wisdom or knowledge [OED]):
(i) a "closed" question (i.e. one seeking only an affirmative or negative response) cannot seriously be claimed to advance the cause of philosophy;
(ii) to advance an hypothesis which cannot be tested (as is clearly the case with your hypothetical question) is either intellectually meaningless or calculated sophistry (= employment of arguments which are intentionally deceptive [OED]);
(iii) the prejudice implicit in the question (as shown above) is, in any event, the antithesis of philosophy.
I could go on but I think my case is demonstrated.
<hr width=100% size=1>
BrendanS, who (it appears) is not a lawyer, seems to have had no difficulty working out that my question was rhetorical (= requiring no answer [OED]), serving only to illustrate the sterility of your so called "philosophical" (more on which below) question.
In case you have difficulty understanding the illustration, the question you asked was clearly invented only for the purpose of casting the respondent in an unfavourable light (as is the case with "Have you stopped beating your wife?"). That this is so is self-evident from the fact that you then answered the question both ways and informed us of the exact conclusion you would draw from each answer. It is hard to think of a more striking example of prejudice (= preconceived opinion [OED]). This is not an attribute one would expect of a legally trained mind.
As for "philosophical" (= pursuit, study or love of wisdom or knowledge [OED]):
(i) a "closed" question (i.e. one seeking only an affirmative or negative response) cannot seriously be claimed to advance the cause of philosophy;
(ii) to advance an hypothesis which cannot be tested (as is clearly the case with your hypothetical question) is either intellectually meaningless or calculated sophistry (= employment of arguments which are intentionally deceptive [OED]);
(iii) the prejudice implicit in the question (as shown above) is, in any event, the antithesis of philosophy.
I could go on but I think my case is demonstrated.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Jeremy_W
New member
I agree absolutely that Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant. If he died tomorrow I certainly wouldn't be sending flowers to his funeral. But he was just as evil when the West was arming him against then Public Enemy Number One Iran! The only people protesting about his conduct then were the very left-wingers and liberals now condemned as peaceniks.
The UN Charter doesn't allow invasion of one country because we disapprove of its internal politics. If so UN forces would have to invade about a hundred states found guilty of serious Human Rights abuses, including Israel.
Every learned analysis I've seen of Resolution 1441 says it doesn't allow armed action.
<hr width=100% size=1>
The UN Charter doesn't allow invasion of one country because we disapprove of its internal politics. If so UN forces would have to invade about a hundred states found guilty of serious Human Rights abuses, including Israel.
Every learned analysis I've seen of Resolution 1441 says it doesn't allow armed action.
<hr width=100% size=1>
hlb
RIP
Think. To sum it all up, We dont like Sadam and want rid of him. But we also dont like the way the Americans side with Israel all the time. Also dont like the way that whatever the Americans do, We have to follow. We are all voicing the same opinions in different ways.
<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue> Haydn
<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue> Haydn
G
Guest
Guest
Lets clarify this - are you against dealing with Saddam because in your view its fundametally wrong to do so, or because the Americans also want to? And how do your prejudices feel about the French these days, and the Germans, when it comes to Iraqi diplomacy?
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
hlb
RIP
I am saying, that if in the Gulf war. They had carried on and took over Iraq. That would have been understandable. But they could not because no UN approval.
So whats changed. There is no evidence that Saddam has done anything else to offend the Americans. Ok he's murdered a few people in the mean time. But then so are a load of other countries.
The Rusians have whole factories, rusting away, with Nuk bombs, Anthrax and every chemical known to man or beast.
Probably on open sale on the black market.
The Americans arnt thinking of attacking them.
So. with no new evidence that Saddam has done anything apart from having some missiles that go 20 miles further than they should. Although what difference this makes I'm not sure. There hardly intercontinental!
Because Bush has not come up with any good reason. Many people think there must be a hidden agenda and speculate what it might be. Oil?
Bush has tried to link Saddam with Binladen. There poles apart and hate each other. The arguement just dont make sence.
So whats Bush after??
Now if he had said that Saddam was murdering many of his people and torturing others and America wanted to help. Then every one would probably have agreed.
I'm neither for or against going to war with Iraq. I just dont know what the motive is. And it seems, no body else does either. Except Blair. Now whats his angle.
<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue> Haydn
So whats changed. There is no evidence that Saddam has done anything else to offend the Americans. Ok he's murdered a few people in the mean time. But then so are a load of other countries.
The Rusians have whole factories, rusting away, with Nuk bombs, Anthrax and every chemical known to man or beast.
Probably on open sale on the black market.
The Americans arnt thinking of attacking them.
So. with no new evidence that Saddam has done anything apart from having some missiles that go 20 miles further than they should. Although what difference this makes I'm not sure. There hardly intercontinental!
Because Bush has not come up with any good reason. Many people think there must be a hidden agenda and speculate what it might be. Oil?
Bush has tried to link Saddam with Binladen. There poles apart and hate each other. The arguement just dont make sence.
So whats Bush after??
Now if he had said that Saddam was murdering many of his people and torturing others and America wanted to help. Then every one would probably have agreed.
I'm neither for or against going to war with Iraq. I just dont know what the motive is. And it seems, no body else does either. Except Blair. Now whats his angle.
<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue> Haydn
oldgit
Well-known member
Just my opinion but the level of discussion has been mostly in good humour.Also think that for most of the time in this instance it has been easy to accept the other posters points of view which is not always the case on some of the forum "debates".
<hr width=100% size=1>Oooh look its still not dark and its nearly 5pm
<hr width=100% size=1>Oooh look its still not dark and its nearly 5pm
Sybarite
Well-known member
There is an exception in the UN charter (Art 2) which normally prevents the UN intervening in the internal affairs of another nation.
Art 55 provides for the upholding of human rights which has been invoked (eg Somalia) to justify UN intervention.
Article 56
All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55.
A recent UN Chronicle article highlights the problem and the apparent anomaly in the UN charter :- (extract)
"Fortunately, however, the trend towards placing internal and international conflicts on an equal footing has been strengthened in recent years by developments in the areas of penal repression and restrictions on the use of certain weapons. To continue distinguishing between internal and international conflicts in these areas is both unethical and illogical. How can anyone argue that it is permissible to attack one's own countrymen with weapons which are prohibited in international conflicts, and that those responsible for looting or rape should be considered as war criminals only if their actions take place in international conflicts but not internal? The review process of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons and the adoption of the ICC Rome Statute have provided two opportunities to begin eliminating such artificial distinctions."
Or do we want to say "Am I my brother's keeper?"
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
Art 55 provides for the upholding of human rights which has been invoked (eg Somalia) to justify UN intervention.
Article 56
All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55.
A recent UN Chronicle article highlights the problem and the apparent anomaly in the UN charter :- (extract)
"Fortunately, however, the trend towards placing internal and international conflicts on an equal footing has been strengthened in recent years by developments in the areas of penal repression and restrictions on the use of certain weapons. To continue distinguishing between internal and international conflicts in these areas is both unethical and illogical. How can anyone argue that it is permissible to attack one's own countrymen with weapons which are prohibited in international conflicts, and that those responsible for looting or rape should be considered as war criminals only if their actions take place in international conflicts but not internal? The review process of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons and the adoption of the ICC Rome Statute have provided two opportunities to begin eliminating such artificial distinctions."
Or do we want to say "Am I my brother's keeper?"
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
hlb
RIP
Yes yes yes. But the iraqi people quite like Saddam. I dont know why. But they do. The nations around him dont want a war. There are supposed to be three ships floating around some place with all the weapons aboard. Why can we not just board them and sink the buggeres if there is a problem.
The fundamental problem.is that America has decided to be the world police man. Its got no jutification to this except as being the strongests. and got more powers of distruction than any one else. And a president that says if we dont agree with him, we are against him. He's a twat. IMHO
<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue> Haydn
The fundamental problem.is that America has decided to be the world police man. Its got no jutification to this except as being the strongests. and got more powers of distruction than any one else. And a president that says if we dont agree with him, we are against him. He's a twat. IMHO
<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue> Haydn
kgi
New member
Well said Haydn couldn't have put it better myself, now if we can just stop vice president Blair from turning us into the 53rd state then we shall all be better off..............keith
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
jimboaw
New member
First we think Saddam is the greatest thing since sliced bread when he's at war with Iran. Give him loads of hardware and inteligence to aid in that conflict. Demonise the religious fundementalist regime because they refuse to have a bloody "McDonalds on every corner. I think I am correct in saying that the USA was well aware of Saddam's treatment of the Kurds and Rumsfeld chose to ignore that when he visited Bagdhad during that conflict. Listen to him now.
IMHO The US and the UK need to step back and consider how bridges can be built between the moslem middle east and the christian west before the last ones are burnt. As Always. An Atheist.
<hr width=100% size=1>
IMHO The US and the UK need to step back and consider how bridges can be built between the moslem middle east and the christian west before the last ones are burnt. As Always. An Atheist.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Magic_Sailor
New member
Ken
You weren't dreaming - I noted that one as well. I suppose he could claim such a thing if its based on their support for a terrorist attack, or if they undertook such an attack themselves.
Trouble is now, whoever you listen to has good points to make for both arguements - including someone in this thread who makes a very good case for what a monster Saddam is.
On a slightly (very) note. Pauline and I have been in Portugal for a few days and all we could get was CNN (lucky us). Anyway, there was an interview with an American demonstrating in favour of a war. He said something like:
"Look this guy has funded state terrorism, trains terrorists, has nuclear and biological weapons and has tried to topple governments around him" Or some such.
He didn't explain exactly who he was talking about and I thought it could be a tad ambiguous!
Magic
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://hometown.aol.co.uk/geoffwestgarth/myhomepage/travelwriting.html>Click for website!</A>
You weren't dreaming - I noted that one as well. I suppose he could claim such a thing if its based on their support for a terrorist attack, or if they undertook such an attack themselves.
Trouble is now, whoever you listen to has good points to make for both arguements - including someone in this thread who makes a very good case for what a monster Saddam is.
On a slightly (very) note. Pauline and I have been in Portugal for a few days and all we could get was CNN (lucky us). Anyway, there was an interview with an American demonstrating in favour of a war. He said something like:
"Look this guy has funded state terrorism, trains terrorists, has nuclear and biological weapons and has tried to topple governments around him" Or some such.
He didn't explain exactly who he was talking about and I thought it could be a tad ambiguous!
Magic
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://hometown.aol.co.uk/geoffwestgarth/myhomepage/travelwriting.html>Click for website!</A>
tcm
...
Re: The Real Issue
Having been a bit undecided, I am now firmly in favour of bombing something, anything really, as this will ensure we get rid of Cook and Short. Also good chance of Blair going, followed by rest of govt at earliest posssible opportunity.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Having been a bit undecided, I am now firmly in favour of bombing something, anything really, as this will ensure we get rid of Cook and Short. Also good chance of Blair going, followed by rest of govt at earliest posssible opportunity.
<hr width=100% size=1>
jimi
Well-known member
Re: The Real Issue
Well I suppose ever cloud has a silver lining!
<hr width=100% size=1>
Well I suppose ever cloud has a silver lining!
<hr width=100% size=1>
Stingo
Well-known member
Re: The Real Issue
I am certainly no fan of the present Downing St occupants, but who is there, besides you and me and I have my doubts about you, that could possibly replace them?
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.stingo.co.uk>http://www.stingo.co.uk</A> <font color=blue>- now showing at a computer near you</font color=blue>
I am certainly no fan of the present Downing St occupants, but who is there, besides you and me and I have my doubts about you, that could possibly replace them?
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.stingo.co.uk>http://www.stingo.co.uk</A> <font color=blue>- now showing at a computer near you</font color=blue>
hlb
RIP
Re: The Real Issue
Problem is. Theres no one with a brain that would want to be a politician.
<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue> Haydn
Problem is. Theres no one with a brain that would want to be a politician.
<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue> Haydn
tcm
...
Re: The Real Issue
correct!
Ms Short and Mr Cook occupy non-jobs. Mr Blair, as with many hands-on PMs, shows that there's no need for a massive cabinet.
<hr width=100% size=1>
correct!
Ms Short and Mr Cook occupy non-jobs. Mr Blair, as with many hands-on PMs, shows that there's no need for a massive cabinet.
<hr width=100% size=1>