Kinda like the Iraqi document of all their weapons?

Post #80,493 by boxley 2/9/03 9:40:39 PM Reply	Kinda like the Iraqi document of all their weapons? Just photocopy the stuff from last time and hand it in. Sounds like he is saying fuckyou and we are saying fuckyou back. Inevitable war whether rheoric matches fact or fiction. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,531 by Brandioch 2/9/03 11:59:13 PM Reply	Did you read the article? The British government claimed to have a "dossier" on Iraq / Saddam with never before publicly released information. So, it's okay if the government tries to frame someone for a crime.... as long as that person has committed that crime.... and you have the government's word that they have.
Post #80,535 by boxley 2/10/03 12:12:22 AM Reply	Well if you say so, me I would dig a little into History facts, regional alliances, colonial and future ambitions that directed the current borders and religion. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,539 by Brandioch 2/10/03 12:43:55 AM Reply	And the History is that their "dossier" was nothing..... more than existing reports based on 12 year old facts. The British government LIED about the information it had. Just as the US government has LIED about the information it has claimed to have had. If the FACTS are sooooooo bad, then why do both of those governments have to LIE about them? Answer: Because the FACTS are not that bad. Yep, Saddam is a vicious, brutal dictator that has killed his own people. Just like about a hundred other ones in the world. No matter how bad he is to his own people, he is NOT a threat to the US. And if he is not a threat to the US, then he is certainly not a threat to "civilization" as the US government likes to keep claiming. And starting a war with him will result in MORE expenses and MORE lost lives than simply helping those who want to leave Iraq find new homes in other countries and letting his regime collapse on its own. We have troops in just about every country around him (and we really don't care about the ones we don't have troops in). If he attacks anyone we care about, we invade. Simple. We wipe out his government and install a new one. As "legal" as any war has ever been. If he never attacks, then he will, eventually, die without starting the "war" that the US government seems to threatened by.
Post #80,541 by boxley 2/10/03 12:57:57 AM Reply	Okay then why is France and Germany so intent on invasion? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=80492\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=80492] thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,578 by Brandioch 2/10/03 10:32:00 AM Reply	I haven't seen the details of that plan yet. So it's kind of hard to discuss it in anything but general terms. Okay then why is France and Germany so intent on invasion? That's just amazing, coming from someone who claims there's a difference between sending a plane into a building to murder children -and- sending a cruise missile into a building to kill children But now you see a French/German plan to have UN inspectors .... -the same as- The US sending 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad. It isn't "murder", it's "killing". Why don't you first try DEFINING the terms you're going to be focusing on? Naw. You won't do that. Yep, having UN inspectors in there will be the same as sending 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad. It's just that there will be a few magnitudes of difference in the number of innocent civilians killed/murdered/rendered-non-living. Yes, there will be UN inspectors and troops in Iraq. No, they will not be there to kill anyone -nor- To overthrow the existing government.
Post #80,586 by boxley 2/10/03 10:57:20 AM Reply	Oh strawman of profound impotence shuffle shuffle exit stage right. Ya wanna argue the other post? Go there and do it so other readers can spot your selfreferencing prooves and posts. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,607 by Brandioch 2/10/03 12:41:42 PM Reply	Okay, here's what "strawman" means. Since it is obvious that you do not understand what you're posting. [link\|http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman\|Strawman] My point is that your use of "invasion" to cover two COMPLETELY different approaches -is very different from- the time you differentiated between flying a missile into a building and flying a missile into a building (when one missile was cruise and the other was a plane). So, you attempt to play semantic games rather than address the actual position. You attempt to play semantic games rather than address the actual position. And, in this thread, you are again attempting to do so by labeling BOTH options as "invasions".
Post #80,640 by boxley 2/10/03 2:37:57 PM Reply	Define invasion Francogermania version, 1.put UN troops in Iraq 2.Create a UN Court 3.Make Iraq a UN Protectorate. 4.Disarm Iraq of WMD transition Government to be more friendly American version 1. Invade by force 2. Put Un Coalition troops in Iraq (assuming such is formed) 3. Creat a UN Tribunal (court) 4. Make Iraq a UN Protectorate. 5. Disarm Iraq of WMD transition Government to be more friendly Now the trick is how to acheive Fracogermania number one, without doing American number one. Aint gonna happen. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,683 by Brandioch 2/10/03 4:46:42 PM Reply	"1. Invade by force" I think you've finally realized the difference. Not that it will stop you from claiming that both are the same. 2.Create a UN Court 3.Make Iraq a UN Protectorate. I'll wait to see the final proposal before commenting on these claims.
Post #80,725 by boxley 2/10/03 6:08:07 PM Reply	and Sadaam Is going to allow all those soldiers to come in. Establish UN Courts and become a UN protectorate without resistance requiring an attack in force? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,728 by bepatient 2/10/03 6:09:51 PM Reply	Sure...he'll probably greet them in person. Great photo op and all. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,752 by Brandioch 2/10/03 7:07:55 PM Reply	It's called "reading". Try it sometime. Boxley blathered: and Sadaam Is going to allow all those soldiers to come in. Establish UN Courts and become a UN protectorate without resistance requiring an attack in force? Yet I had already addressed this specific point in an earlier post in this thread:[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=80683\|Here] 2.Create a UN Court 3.Make Iraq a UN Protectorate. I'll wait to see the final proposal before commenting on these claims. But, of course, you wouldn't be you if you could actually read what I had previously posted. Now you get to make a Merlin reference because I linked to a previous post of mine (if only to show you that I had responded to those specific items in a previous post, in this thread even). Again, is Saddam going to allow those? I guess we'll have to wait to see if they are actually part of the plan, and, if they are, how they are to be implemented.
Post #80,760 by boxley 2/10/03 7:57:36 PM Reply	Self referencing for clarity is fine the only time I did other wise was to call you on the patented brandi shuffle :-) So basically you are saying no comment till the proposal is officially presented? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,975 by Another Scott 2/11/03 4:35:43 PM Reply	Nope. Iraq says no. [link\|http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top%20Financial%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_topfin&T=markets_box.ht&s2=ad_right1_topfin&bt=ad_position1_topfin&box=ad_box_all&tag=financial&middle=ad_frame2_topfin&s=APkld6RZ_Q3J1ZGUg\|Here] on Bloomberg. The URL will change. New York, Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose to the highest price in more than two years after Iraq rejected the presence of United Nations peacekeepers under a plan by France and Germany to avoid a military conflict. ``No Iraqi would accept the deployment of such a force,'' Foreign Minister Naji Sabri told the Al Hayat newspaper. The peacekeepers would be present while UN inspectors stripped Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. A broadcast statement purported to be from terrorist leader Osama bin Laden boosted prices in late trading. This (their rejection) isn't surprising to me. The only way Iraq would accept such a plan is if they saw it as the only alternative to invasion. And then they would act just as the have with the existing inspections - doing just enough to prevent further military action while keeping weapons that they wanted. Saddam's MO is to draw things out as long as possible and hope that the UN and the world tires of the conflict. Cheers, Scott.
Post #80,571 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 10:21:24 AM Reply	Red Scare redux. Same trick, different villains. And, much like the Red Scares of the past, most Muricans believe it. More is the pity.

Welcome to IWETHEY!