Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

The Mother Of All Ironies!

Thu Jan 30, 2003 1:07 pm

I read this, and all I could do was laugh at the sheer irony of it all.

http://rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/world/united_nations/latest_developments/story_more/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_disarmament_1

Iraq May Chair Disarmament Conference
Wed Jan 29, 2:32 PM ET

By BARBARA BORST, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - Iraq is in line to take over as chairman of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in May, prompting one U.S. official Wednesday to say: "The irony is overwhelming."

Richard Grenell, spokesman for U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte, issued the comment as officials realized Iraq was in line for the rotating post. India now holds it and will be followed by Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland and Israel as countries take the job in alphabetical order.

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said on Tuesday that the choice of conference leaders is "a purely automatic rotation by alphabetical order" with five or six conference presidents each year, each serving a term of about four weeks.

"I think you could expect that from time to time a letter would come up that might raise questions in certain quarters, but it has no political significance, I would say," said Eckhard, spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), when asked if Iraq holding the job did not seem odd.

The 66-nation Conference on Disarmament, based in Geneva, is the world's top disarmament forum. It meets annually for 24 weeks in three sessions beginning in January.

The U.N. General Assembly established the conference in 1979 with 40 members to consolidate the work of several Geneva, Switzerland-based negotiating bodies that had been set up in the 1960s.

The conference, which adopts its decisions by consensus, has negotiated such major multilateral arms limitation and disarmament agreements as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. It also steered talks on the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not start this as a prelude to commenting on it, or for flaming purposes, but I couldn't help but laugh over the incredible irony.  Laugh out loud
 
Notar520AC
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 6:53 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Thu Jan 30, 2003 1:11 pm

Oh my God!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!! That is so frickin hilarious! That really tempts me to change my hesitation about nuking the whole country...
BMW - The Ultimate Driving Machine
 
Notar520AC
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 6:53 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Thu Jan 30, 2003 2:13 pm

I apologize- I shouldn't have jumped to that statement- I just turned my reputation into mud, didn't I? Sometimes I slip- I admit it, but we've been discussing this so much in our history class that I'm so tired of the threat just being there...
BMW - The Ultimate Driving Machine
 
Guest

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Thu Jan 30, 2003 4:28 pm

what does this say about the united nations?

 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Thu Jan 30, 2003 6:16 pm

That sounds strange, right.
But the principle of a rotating presidence is not new.
Perhaps Iraq should have been banned from the UN, then we wouldn't have had that sort of situation ?
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Thu Jan 30, 2003 7:32 pm

I assumed when I opened this post that the 'mother of all ironies' was someone pointing out the absurdity of the nation with the most WMD (and strongest appetite for using them) using aforementioned WMDs against a nation with one of the smallest stockpiles of WMDs (assuming they have any at all), for having WMDs.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
turbulence
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 1999 1:33 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Thu Jan 30, 2003 8:16 pm

Yes!!! Bravo, Cedarjet: You are the one that really pointed to the ultimate Irony. Unluckily GWB is not going to understand it. Once, quite long ago I wrote my simplest thoughts about Bush jr., president. It was on Kyoto but can be applied to any of Bush thoughts. I wrote "George W. Bush is gonna fuck it all", (you can read it here) and I maintain it. He f*ed Texas while he was the governor, he just f*ed Alaska, he's gonna f*ck Iraq very soon whatever UN say, and the consequences of it will be more anti-americans everywhere, with the risk extended to fanatism of many people, and increasing the risk for his co-citizens of suffering more attacks at home worse than the NY-WTC one. That one was very impressive, very spectacular, but quite limited. There are many different discrete ways of being more harmful and during longer time than just crashing a couple of jets. And why? just for some oil and a couple of dollars, no matter how many innocents must die or become poorer... Just wait and see.

Best turbulences.
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Thu Jan 30, 2003 8:31 pm

I thought it was about the US being appointed debt-collector-in-chief for those member nations that had not paid their membership dues.

When are you guys going to stop picking on the UN ? You claim it is a non-working organisation but the truth of the matter is that you don't really want it to work. Effective multi-lateral action would play hell with your unilateral desires don't you think ? Fine for you to think that way but save the canned outrage for someone who believes it.

Your government goes out of it's way to marginalise or disregard the UN's efforts so big surprise that it is not what it should be. Having said that I think it is a vast improvement over past international relations efforts but such a conclusion would require perspective ... in short supply around here I know.
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:16 am

It is hard not to ignore the UN given that organization's impotence and incompetence. The appointment of Iraq, Iran, and Libya to some key posts just add to the bass ackwardness of the UN.
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:27 am

Since all you UN-haters seem to love Jeeeeeesus so much I just thought I would remind you of the 'he who is without sin casting the first stone' rule of thumb.

If your own country were a responsible member of the UN others might take your opinions more seriously. Get your own house in order before smugly critisizing every fucked-up decision others make.
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:39 am

Easy there PJ. The problem with your beloved UN is the decisions that they do not make or do not even consider. Rather than responding to Iraq's defiance for 11 years, they sat there like a jackass in a hailstorm. Now everyone expects them to be taken seriously all of a sudden. I do not see it happening.
 
toady
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 2:36 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:43 am

"India now holds it and will be followed by Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland and Israel as countries take the job in alphabetical order."

All the more reason to get the war over and done with quickly. If the invasion can be completed by the end of Iran's tenure, there might be a decent Iraqi government to take the disarmament chair.

That's only half tongue-in-cheek.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:47 am

What does this say about the United Nations? It says that it is just that. Every nation should be involved. Not just nations that the all-godly US deems suitable or those that don't pose a threat to peace (ironically including the US).
Your bone's got a little machine
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:52 am

So I guess Iran, Iraq, and Libya are "suitable" for those positions in your opinion. I rest my case.

 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 2:34 am

So your problem with the UN is that it dares to try to represent the opinions of the world, rather than just the US?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 4:07 am

Come on, the US has attacked loads of countries since I started counting (1984): Lebanon, Sudan, Afganistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Somalia, Serbia... and the US is somehow more suitable for membership to the UN than Iraq, who have attacked only two (Iran and Kuwait), or Iran, who have attacked none?

And Turbulence is right, Dubya is steering the US right into another 9/11, and if you were surprised how many rational, compassionate people around the world failed to express surprise, you wait til the next one. The chorus of "you asked for it" will be deafening (not the same as being unsympathetic to the actual victims btw).

Finally, I pointed out the irony of the WMD king attacking a WMD pauper for having, maybe, a few little WMDs. Further irony: if aforesaid WMD pauper (Iraq) do have any, guess who they bought them off? How many times has Donald Rumsfeld been to Baghdad to sell WMDs to Saddam? (answer: two trips, 1983 & 1984).
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:11 pm

Come on, the US has attacked loads of countries since I started counting (1984): Lebanon, Sudan, Afganistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Somalia, Serbia... and the US is somehow more suitable for membership to the UN than Iraq, who have attacked only two (Iran and Kuwait), or Iran, who have attacked none?

Let's take a look at your list, Cedarjet, and let's define what you mean by "attack".

By "attack", in this context, I take it to mean "start a conflict". Let's take a look at those.

-Lebanon: Sent to help Lebanon and Israel in attacks from Syrian-backed militia. Oh, and over 200 marines were "attacked" and killed in a terrorist attack there. The conflict was already underway when the U.S. entered it.

-Sudan. Cruise missiles launched on Sudan in response to the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. In other words, the U.S. was attacked first.

-Iraq. Responded in 1991 after Iraq occupied Kuwait. It was a war started by Iraq, and the U.S. lead a COALITION that included Arab nations to take Kuwait back. In other words, Iraq started the conflict.

-Panama: This was an attack. It was an attack to oust a known international drug-trafficker. I didn't agree with the invasion, but it sure helped Panama.

-Greneda: Hardly worth mentioning as a major engagement. A communist regime was threatening Americans on the island, and the U.S. went in, got them out, and shot it out with a few Cuban soldiers.

-Nicaragua: I don't remember any attack on Nicaragua. Refresh my memory on that one. I don't recall that one.

-Somalia: Peace-Keeping mission, under the guise of the U.N. Oh, a bunch of Yanks were murdered in the streets of Mogadishu.

-Serbia: Part of a Peace-keeping mission under NATO command. The conflict was already underway.

So, under the way I see it, only one of those "attacks" was really an "attack"-Panama. The rest were in response to aggression, or under the guise of peace-keeping mission. I think you miss the mark on this one, Cedarjet.

Footnote: the two conflicts started by Iraq cost over 1 million lives, something you failed to mention.

And Turbulence is right, Dubya is steering the US right into another 9/11, and if you were surprised how many rational, compassionate people around the world failed to express surprise, you wait til the next one. The chorus of "you asked for it" will be deafening (not the same as being unsympathetic to the actual victims btw).

And you'll be at the head of the cheering section, secretly happy that someone else bloodied the U.S, right? And yes, it is the same as being unsympathetic to the victims. If you're saying "you asked for it", you include the American people, Cedarjet. Stop the double-talk.

Again, it's amazing that something I found amusing has been turned into another hysterical, overdone anti-American thread, led by the likes of PJ, and his endless attempts to belittle the U.S. You guys are really pathetic.
 
Guest

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 8:22 pm

Alpha1,

I read this thread as per your recommendation and whilst I see idiotic anti-american statements I see just as many idiots who can't quite grasp simple concepts.

Irony? What's the irony in rotating responsibilities? Sure, they should EXPEL Iraq from the UN, but whilst they are a member nation they have every right to be involved.

As for the UN itself, what's your problem? Seems to me a convenient organisation to ignore when you want to and vilify when you wish. The UN is useless because nobody takes it seriously and i'm sorry, but the USA is one of the biggest offenders, only supporting the Un when it wants something or when it agrees. That's not how democratic organisations work, and if our "well respected superpower" won't honour the organisation, why would you expect any other country to do it? Or are you suggesting we do as America says rather than as they do?

All in all, this thread is pretty crappy .... and I think this statement pretty much sums it all up:

So your problem with the UN is that it dares to try to represent the opinions of the world, rather than just the US?




ADG
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 9:40 pm

Second posting.

I made my thoughts on this earlier.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/330497/
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 9:54 pm

Irony? What's the irony in rotating responsibilities?

No, no, there's no irony in the rotating of responsibilities, but the irony, and it is one, is that Iraq's rightful turn-on the disarmament commission-comes at a time when Iraq is in the middle of a disarmament question. It is a delicioius irony, and I found it amusing. That's why I'm dismayed at what the thread was turned into, that's all.

Sure, they should EXPEL Iraq from the UN, but whilst they are a member nation they have every right to be involved.

I never said that, did I? That wasn't the point of my thread at all. It was simply the timing of the event, and I found it amusing.

As for the UN itself, what's your problem? Seems to me a convenient organisation to ignore when you want to and vilify when you wish.

Why do you have to say "you", ADG? For a majority of nations in that peculiar body, that is the way it works-Russia (USSR), China, France, Britian, the U.S., and other nations over the years like Uganda, Argentina, Israel, Iran and others have done the same thing-run to the U.N. when it suits their purpose, and conveniently ignored it when the U.N. is found opposing their particular nation. It is not something common only to the U.S. Such a statement is disingenious, to say the least.

So your problem with the UN is that it dares to try to represent the opinions of the world, rather than just the US?

My problem, ADG, with the UN is that while it is the only voice of "world opinion", it has screwed up more of it's missions than any organization known to man, and often makes a mockery of itself by some if it's internal decisions, like the latest with Libya, and last year in putting a nation like Zimbabwe on a human rights commission. It is also cynically looked at because it refuses to get rid of one of the worst decisions it ever made-to put veto power in the hands of 5 nations on the security council.

I have no problem with the basic concept of the UN. I have a problem with the way it's misuesed in the world, by everyone, and by it's appalling beaucratic bumbling.
 
User avatar
BNE
Posts: 2921
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 9:37 pm

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 10:33 pm

I did not start this as a prelude to commenting on it, or for flaming purposes, but I couldn't help but laugh over the incredible irony

Does the term a red rag to a bull mean anything.



And Turbulence is right, Dubya is steering the US right into another 9/11, and if you were surprised how many rational, compassionate people around the world failed to express surprise, you wait til the next one. The chorus of "you asked for it" will be deafening (not the same as being unsympathetic to the actual victims btw).

And you'll be at the head of the cheering section, secretly happy that someone else bloodied the U.S, right? And yes, it is the same as being unsympathetic to the victims.


I don't think anyone in the world would be happy with another 9-11 tradegy, but the rest of the world would be thinking that any future tradegy that the US had it coming.


Why fly non stop when you can connect
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 10:57 pm

I don't want to "pour oil on the fire" as we say in French, but it would be FAR MORE IRONIC that the US headed the disarmament commission, while the military expenses in the USA have litterally exploded after the 11th September (and is the 1st in the world by far) !!!!

If that's not called hypocrisy what is it then ?
 
turbulence
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 1999 1:33 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Fri Jan 31, 2003 11:32 pm

Eh!!!

Wait a moment...

The fact saying that another NY-WTC is coming on, or even "you asked for it", which i did not dare writing, but actually think, does not mean being unsympathetic to the victims; the civil population (or the "mostest" of them) do not deserve what happened, but the foreign policy of the USA somehow caused it... It has been discussed endless times...


Best turbulences
 
Guest

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Sat Feb 01, 2003 6:37 am

No, no, there's no irony in the rotating of responsibilities, but the irony, and it is one, is that Iraq's rightful turn-on the disarmament commission-comes at a time when Iraq is in the middle of a disarmament question.

Amusing sure, but hardly worth getting into a lather about. Is America moving for Iraqs removal from the UN?

It is a delicioius irony, and I found it amusing. That's why I'm dismayed at what the thread was turned into, that's all.

Ah ... I see and agree. It's timing is amusing. You'd better watch out though, you exhibit almost Australian like humour there  Wow!

I never said that, did I? That wasn't the point of my thread at all. It was simply the timing of the event, and I found it amusing.

Yes, I missed your point as well. I have to admit that it was lost in the feral rantings posted after your post.

Why do you have to say "you", ADG?

In this instance "you" referred to everyone above bitchin about the UN.

For a majority of nations in that peculiar body, that is the way it works-Russia (USSR), China, France, Britian, the U.S., and other nations over the years like Uganda, Argentina, Israel, Iran and others have done the same thing-run to the U.N. when it suits their purpose, and conveniently ignored it when the U.N. is found opposing their particular nation. It is not something common only to the U.S. Such a statement is disingenious, to say the least.

The statement is the truth. More so for America as it is a "superpower", a country we should all look up to, and yet whilst vilifying others for misbehaving it's one of the most visible examples of people who do not honour the UN. Why should others listen to the UN when America wont'? Hardly a glowing example to the rest of the world.

My problem, ADG, with the UN is that while it is the only voice of "world opinion", it has screwed up more of it's missions than any organization known to man, and often makes a mockery of itself by some if it's internal decisions, like the latest with Libya, and last year in putting a nation like Zimbabwe on a human rights commission. It is also cynically looked at because it refuses to get rid of one of the worst decisions it ever made-to put veto power in the hands of 5 nations on the security council.

Isn't there a saying about reaping what you sow?

I have no problem with the basic concept of the UN. I have a problem with the way it's misuesed in the world, by everyone, and by it's appalling beaucratic bumbling.

and if your country were to show it the respect it deserves, perhaps other countries will learn by example and you wouldn't look quite so hypocritical when whining about the behaviour of the UN.





ADG
 
B747forlife
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:36 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Sun Feb 02, 2003 1:56 am

I was wondering, when has the US threathened to use its WMD in the past 30 or so years? They haven't. Who has attacked his own people and Kuwait, and Israel, and is lying to inspectors, and etc.? Saddam, through Iraq. Don't give me that irony crap about the US, the only irony is that the one country that has been ordered to disarm isn't, and will head the disarmarment commission.

Why do you need to even bring in the part about US debts? If the US lowered the amount of money it gave 25%, like Japan just did, the UN would be bankrupt, so be happy for what the UN is getting.

-Nick
 
Guest

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Sun Feb 02, 2003 7:00 am

I was wondering, when has the US threathened to use its WMD in the past 30 or so years?

Nice classification. They used nukes on Japan, they pointed them at the USSR (that's threatening), they're still pointed at places and I think that GWB has stated that he will use nukes if required. They used WMD in Vietnam and Afghanistan and most likely the other places they have been into.

They haven't.

You are incorrect. When the USA threatens another country with war that can be considered a threat to use nukes, when the Prez says "We will take whatever action is necessary", that can be considred a threat to use WMD.

Who has attacked his own people and Kuwait, and Israel, and is lying to inspectors, and etc.?

But where is his threat against America?

Saddam, through Iraq. Don't give me that irony crap about the US, the only irony is that the one country that has been ordered to disarm isn't, and will head the disarmarment commission.

Whilst we all see this, what we don't see is the threat against the US.

Why do you need to even bring in the part about US debts? If the US lowered the amount of money it gave 25%, like Japan just did, the UN would be bankrupt, so be happy for what the UN is getting.

So the UN should be grateful to the US for it's very existance? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being the UN? Typical atttide though, but I think you miss the fact that the US only pays when it wants UN support.





ADG
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Sun Feb 02, 2003 7:48 am

They used nukes on Japan, they pointed them at the USSR (that's threatening)

1. Used on Japan to finish a war Japan started. Made unnecessary an invasion of Japan that would have cost at least another million human lives. And back then, they were not considered WMD's as they are today, as I've said many times. They were just another new weapon that just happened to end the war.

2. The USSR was pointing them at us as well. I notice you didn't mention that fact. The only time we threatened to use them on Russia was when they introducted offenive weapons in Cuba in October of 1962. That's the only time that I see we "threatened" Russia with the things.
 
Guest

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Sun Feb 02, 2003 8:22 am

1. Used on Japan to finish a war Japan started.

Again Alpha1, I wasn't making a judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the action, merely that the action had been taken.

Made unnecessary an invasion of Japan that would have cost at least another million human lives.

Speculation (and irrelevant to the thread).

And back then, they were not considered WMD's as they are today, as I've said many times. They were just another new weapon that just happened to end the war.

WMD are anything that causes "Mass Destruction". In accordance with the title "Weapons of Mass Destruction". I would suggest that 100,000 people and 2 cities constitutes mass destruction.

2. The USSR was pointing them at us as well. I notice you didn't mention that fact.

Again you misread the conversation (why is that?). I was responding to an inaccurate statement, not making a judgement call on whether the US had the right to point them or not. The conversation was about American, not the USSR. Do I really need to pussyfoot around issues to make you feel good? Aren't you old enough to figure out what is being said and why?

The only time we threatened to use them on Russia was when they introducted offenive weapons in Cuba in October of 1962. That's the only time that I see we "threatened" Russia with the things.

Again, the reason is not relevant here as it is not within the context of the conversation, the poster I was responding to infers that the US didn't do it, I was simply proving they did. At no time in my post did I suggest that the US were right or wrong to do so, it's not within the scope of the converstation.







ADG
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Sun Feb 02, 2003 8:32 am

Again Alpha1, I wasn't making a judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the action, merely that the action had been taken.

I wrote that, fully understanding that's what you meant. But I think it's important to round out the story. To simply say "you used them on Japan", without saying why can leave a distorted impression.

Speculation (and irrelevant to the thread).

No, it's not speculation, Bron. It would have cost at least a million lives. There's no doubt of that. And it may be irrelevant to the thread, but it's VERY relevant on why their use, while tragic, prevented a larger tragedy.

WMD are anything that causes "Mass Destruction". In accordance with the title "Weapons of Mass Destruction". I would suggest that 100,000 people and 2 cities constitutes mass destruction.

Would you have considered the thousand plane raids on Berlin WMD's? Or the firebombings in Germany, Japan and Britian? I don't-it was warfare.

As for the last two, I won't waste space cutting and pasting them-what I said about the first highlighted sentence goes for the last two.
 
B747forlife
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:36 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Sun Feb 02, 2003 12:40 pm

ADG - But where is his threat against America?

You see, one more thing a lot of liberals are confused about. A lot of them push for more global involvement (by America), right? Yes. Here we have America trying to be invovled in the global effort to disarm Iraq, but somehow America is still wrong. How? America is pushing that Iraq be disarmed now. The UN will not do this, so in accordance with the UNs own resolutions the US will step up, with the rest of the willing nations, and disarm Iraq if Saddam does not give up his WMD. The threat against America is the instability in the region, among other things.

They used nukes on Japan

Point being? As Alpha 1 also said, Japan started the war, and this was the best way to end it without millions dying. This is the worst argument I have heard all day.

You are incorrect. When the USA threatens another country with war that can be considered a threat to use nukes, when the Prez says "We will take whatever action is necessary", that can be considred a threat to use WMD.

Right, Bush is really going to use WMD. He is not going to nuke Iraq (unless Iraq rolls out the nukes first), as the backlash would be catostrophic.

So the UN should be grateful to the US for it's very existance? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being the UN? Typical atttide though, but I think you miss the fact that the US only pays when it wants UN support.

Actually I do think the UN should be grateful to the US. If it wern't for good, ole US dollars the UN would have been gone years ago. And it does defeat the purpose of the UN, which is why the US should at least leave (which would doom the UN anyway, due to a lack of funds). When else should the US pay? When the UN is practically allowing dictatorships ot control the whole damn thing?

-Nick
 
Guest

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Sun Feb 02, 2003 5:59 pm

I wrote that, fully understanding that's what you meant. But I think it's important to round out the story. To simply say "you used them on Japan", without saying why can leave a distorted impression.

Then next time ensure you do not write it in a manner as to infer I may have deliberately left it out to slant the conversation, it is in this instance irrelevant.

No, it's not speculation, Bron. It would have cost at least a million lives. There's no doubt of that. And it may be irrelevant to the thread, but it's VERY relevant on why their use, while tragic, prevented a larger tragedy.

It is nothing more than speculation, it didn't happen so you don't know what would have occurred, you cannot claim to know as a matter of fact and expect to retain any credibility.

Would you have considered the thousand plane raids on Berlin WMD's? Or the firebombings in Germany, Japan and Britian? I don't-it was warfare.

Warfare using Weapons of Mass destruction. Anything that causes mass destruction is a WMD. Some people will deny that as they seem to think that admitting to fact somehow brings their own country down adn therefore we must zealously hide the facts. I find that ignorance.

and Alpha1 .. i'm not sure when we got to first a name basis .....

You see, one more thing a lot of liberals are confused about. A lot of them push for more global involvement (by America), right? Yes.

Who? Where?

Here we have America trying to be invovled in the global effort to disarm Iraq, but somehow America is still wrong. How? America is pushing that Iraq be disarmed now.

To me it's not the fact they want Iraq disarmed by the dishonest and zealous method in which they are heading towards it that is irritating me. False statements made without proof, one sided propoganda ... where is the credibility?

The UN will not do this, so in accordance with the UNs own resolutions the US will step up, with the rest of the willing nations, and disarm Iraq if Saddam does not give up his WMD. The threat against America is the instability in the region, among other things.

Actually, the *claim* america makes is that Iraq has WMD that they will use against the USA, even though it has not been threatened and there is no proof .. in otherwords, it's nothing more than a lie.

Instability in the region is irrelevant to the US, so we can only surmise given the level of zealous attention that the issue is based upon (a) pride and (b) oil. What else can a person think?

Point being?

Point being that there is only one country with a history of using nuclear weapons against an enemy, and thats the country that would have us now believe they are acting in our best interests. Hardly credible given past history.

As Alpha 1 also said, Japan started the war, and this was the best way to end it without millions dying. This is the worst argument I have heard all day.

Only because of your biased slant.

Right, Bush is really going to use WMD. He is not going to nuke Iraq (unless Iraq rolls out the nukes first), as the backlash would be catostrophic.

So a country who has made not threats should be attacked simply because a man who throws around worthless threats says so? Now that's pretty laughable.

Actually I do think the UN should be grateful to the US.

Yeah, pretty shitty that the rest of the world finds that attitude so offensive isn't it? To you the good ole USofA is the be all and end all of the world and then you wonder why people hate it? They don't hate the US, they had the fools with the big mouths that live there.

If it wern't for good, ole US dollars the UN would have been gone years ago.

are these the same US dollars that the US didn't pay for many years until they wanted UN support for the attack on Afghanistan? Seems to me the UN was plodding along without that money for a fair while and the US used it as a carrot on a stick to bribe the UN. The US is responsible for making the UN the joke that it is today, and the reason why you guys hate it is simply because every now and again the UN will not blindly follow the US line, and that really irks those of you who think the US is right all the time.

And it does defeat the purpose of the UN, which is why the US should at least leave (which would doom the UN anyway, due to a lack of funds).

I dont' believe that to be true, although if the US leaves teh UN then it should isolate itself from the rest of the world, otherwise it will become just like the USSR of old, the global bully ... something it's 1/2 way to being already.

When else should the US pay? When the UN is practically allowing dictatorships ot control the whole damn thing?

What a lot of rubbish, the UN does not allow dictatorships to control the whole thing, it's simply sour grapes coming through. Time for you to learn that you don't get your way all the time, regardless of who you are.




ADG
 
CMK10
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 10:56 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Mon Feb 03, 2003 3:26 am

If you ask me the mother of all ironies is the pop up blocker pop up ad.
DC-10's Forever
"Traveling light is the only way to fly" - Eric Clapton
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Mon Feb 03, 2003 3:32 am

Then next time ensure you do not write it in a manner as to infer I may have deliberately left it out to slant the conversation, it is in this instance irrelevant.

With all due respect, Bron, I think that's exactly what you did. Not out of meanness, but simply because that's the way you think towards everything the U.S. does. You left the cup only "half full" for that very reason. And it is not irrelevant. When one uses words, what is NOT said is equally important many times as what is said. When you leave only half of the story out there for consumption, especially on a statement abut the use of the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it leave the impression that the U.S. was somehow unjustified in using these weapons to end a war started by Japan.

Only because of your biased slant.

There's no biased slant in what he said, ADG. He was making an observation based on historical fact: had the U.S. not dropped the bombs on Japan in August, 1941, and invasion of Japan WOULD have taken place on November 1, 1945, and WOULD have cost a horrendous amount of lives-American, Japanese, British, Aussie, New Zelanders, and more. That's not speculation, that is historical fact. So the 150,000 deaths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while an appalling tragedy, prevented an even more appalling loss of life.

and Alpha1 .. i'm not sure when we got to first a name basis .....

You chose to make your name public. It's not intended as any disrespect. I think you're creating an issue here where none exists, Bron.
 
Guest

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Mon Feb 03, 2003 5:08 am

If you ask me the mother of all ironies is the pop up blocker pop up ad.

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Alpha1,

We're not on first name basis ...

With all due respect, ADG, I think that's exactly what you did.

No Alpha1, that's what you ASSume I did.

You left the cup only "half full" for that very reason.

The reason behind the attack is irrelevant in the context of the discussion. It was irrelevant then and it remains irrelevant now. The discussion was not on whether the action was justified or not, but simply that the action occurred. The fact that you feel it was justified does not negate the fact that it was done.

That's not speculation, that is historical fact.

The only historical fact was that America planned an invasion. The rest is mere speculation.

You chose to make your name public. It's not intended as any disrespect. I think you're creating an issue here where none exists, ADG.

Where did I make that public?




ADG
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Mon Feb 03, 2003 5:59 am

Alpha1,

We're not on first name basis ...


If your first name embarrasses you that much, I will refrain from using it. Agian, a mountain out of a mole hill.

No Alpha1, that's what you ASSume I did.

Wrong, that is exactly what you did. It's based on everything you've ever said about my country on here. No little half-truth to little to try and embarrass or belittle the U.S. with, eh, Br.....er, ADG.  Smile

The reason behind the attack is irrelevant in the context of the discussion.

Then bringing up the attack, is equally irrelevant. You and Mr. Mandela are both guility of that in this context. He stated half of the story, and so did you. In that context, what I say in response, to both of you is ABSOLUTELY relevant! If this Marxist is going to say "you're bad for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki", without even mentioning why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed in the first place, it's completely relavant to set the record straight.

The only historical fact was that America planned an invasion. The rest is mere speculation.

You're being deliberately blind and naive, ADG. There's nothing speculative as to what would have happened in Japan-it would have been a bloodbath to rival the Eastern Front. Had the invasion taken place, the death toll would have been enormous. If you deny that, then you're feighning a naivete that is truly incredible. You can deny it, but you're dead wrong.
 
Guest

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Mon Feb 03, 2003 4:30 pm

Agian, a mountain out of a mole hill.

and yet I had to ask you twice?

*yawn*

Then bringing up the attack, is equally irrelevant.

Rubbish. it was a response to a statement and was very relevant, it's your misplaced pride that is the real issue now and that's irrelevant to me and the discussion at hand.

"you're bad for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki", without even mentioning why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed in the first place, it's completely relavant to set the record straight.

As I never suggested the US was bad for doing so, the whole point is moot.

You're being deliberately blind and naive, ADG.

If that's what you call pointing out the facts then so be it alpha1. You carry on about 1/2 stories but that's all your speculation is as well. In reality, it's not relevant to this discussion anyway. Its nothing more than a diversionary tactic on your part.

You can deny it, but you're dead wrong.

I can deny it and i'm not dead wrong. Like most of the things you say, you cannot support your statements with fact and therefore that would make you wrong. Again though, it's irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to discuss the war, then why not start a thread on it?




ADG
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The Mother Of All Ironies!

Mon Feb 03, 2003 11:39 pm

If that's what you call pointing out the facts then so be it alpha1.

Half truths and half the story are not "facts". Facts are when you include the whole story, even the points you might think as "irrelevant". It is not irrelevant to point out why the bombs were dropped. That is ALWAYS pertinent to when talking about Nagisaki and Hiroshima, no matter what the context of the story.

Again, I feel you're showing how out of your league you are, but insinuating otherwise.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: einsteinboricua, VonRichtofen and 6 guests