How do native western Europeans feel?

[Drummond]

Have you lost your mind ...... or have you never had it?

Because I don't buy into the braindead propaganda that you do ?

Instead of just chucking out abuse, try DISPROVING what I say.

Or ... not. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

 

[GLASNOST]

You are SO boring.

 

[Drummond]

You are SO boring.

The truth often is. But it doesn't stop being the truth because of it.

Since you can't counter my arguments, so you're trying other tricks to divert away from that.

But here's the thing. Western media, especially in Europe, didn't cover - AT ALL - the news of degraded WMD's being found in Iraq.They WERE ... but we in Europe had a news blackout about it. Why ? Because, had the truth been disseminated, people might've questioned the so-called prevailing 'wisdom' of arguments such as yours.

My link in a previous post proves me right. It's one of those you've ignored. And tried to indirectly ridicule. Naturally.

Some of us prefer to face truths instead of run away from them, believing Leftie fantasies instead. I'm one person who seeks truth. Does it make me boring ? Well ... it makes me something of a pain to Lefties who hate to see unwelcome truths see the light of day.

My advice ... live with it.

 

[GLASNOST]

The truth often is.

You have contributed nothing but propaganda, sans fact, which I've already proved. But in your defense I was expecting too much from you because out-dated and disproved propaganda is all you have.

 

[Drummond]

The truth often is.

You have contributed nothing but propaganda, sans fact, which I've already proved. But in your defense I was expecting too much from you because out-dated and disproved propaganda is all you have.

Indeed ? OK ... let's examine that.

In 2003, the UN and the world was faced with a Saddam who told them he had no WMD's. Now, according to UN Resolution 1441, he was either required to give a full account of the numbers he DID have, or, prove that they all no longer existed.

What Saddam did was to agree (after much prevarication) to let UN teams into Iraq. They were allowed to go to designated sites and inspect those sites. They were also allowed to interview his scientists (.. but only under armed supervision. 'Of course').

The reality was that those UN teams had no baseline figures to work from .. NO account of the number of WMD's Saddam had originally, in order to verify that all had been destroyed -- just a bland 'we have no WMD's' statement. So, they went to the sites, discovered evidence that destructions had taken place, BUT, they had no way of knowing quantities destroyed. That information was neither available, nor even verifiable if it had been.

The UN teams had no ability to scour the entirety of Iraq, looking for them .. they lacked the manpower, for one thing. They could only go to set areas with Saddam's permission. To do WHAT, usefully ... ??

.. so. No knowledge available of exact numbers of original stocks needing to be accounted for as destroyed. No way of verifying those numbers destroyed, even IF they'd been given.

And on the back of THAT ... we're just all supposed to 'know' that Iraq was WMD-free ????

So who's dealing in fact, and who's swallowed propaganda ? YOU tell ME !!

I posted previously a declassified portion of an Intelligence document, one which asserted that in excess of 500 old, degraded WMD weapons had been found (Res 1441 said nothing about the condition WMD's needed to be in, to qualify as them !). That same document, drafted years after the invasion, said that more WMD's were still assessed to exist in Iraq. Just on the basis that this was drafted a decade ago, and for no other reason ... do you reject it, just because it's inconvenient to your argument ?

[Care to take a look ? Here's the link again ...]

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

If you've a better reason for doing so, let's hear it ... and something better than 'I trust what Saddam told us' will have to do, I'm afraid.

Come on - let's see if you can usefully counter any of my post. Or will you just lapse into ridicule once more ?

 

[GLASNOST]

Come on - let's see if you can usefully counter any of my post. Or will you just lapse into ridicule once more ?

Let me tell you something that might give you some insight into this dialogue, and any other in future. Back in post #82 you said, "UN Resolution 1441 had provision for 'serious consequence' as though that in itself makes any invasion legal. Have you the intelligence of a child? Having read that I realized without any doubt that you are a simple troll, and I haven't taken anything you've said since then seriously. Flab on as much as you like but it all boils down to nonsense.

 

[Drummond]

Come on - let's see if you can usefully counter any of my post. Or will you just lapse into ridicule once more ?

Let me tell you something that might give you some insight into this dialogue, and any other in future. Back in post #82 you said, "UN Resolution 1441 had provision for 'serious consequence' as though that in itself makes any invasion legal. Have you the intelligence of a child? Having read that I realized without any doubt that you are a simple troll, and I haven't taken anything you've said since then seriously. Flab on as much as you like but it all boils down to nonsense.

Your reply isn't exactly impressive, considering that you've ignored all I said in my last post !! Understandable, of course, since you can't counter the accuracy of what I've said with any degree of truth. What I've described, is what happened ... and the only logical outcome of the puerile UN actions in Iraq (which never had any hope of settling a thing) was that something effective had to replace it all.

This is what happened - the military intervention. Saddam was going to forever muck the UN around, and the UN was going to continue with fruitless, pointless, 'investigations' that'd get nowhere. Even Blix came to essentially that very conclusion.

But it seems that trying to undermine an action that couldn't help but make the world a safer place, is what you really care about (... which surely begs the question: are you loyal to a Left wing brand of political thought ?) . If you can't question the history, so, you'll try and question the legality of responsible, decisive action.

Forgive this following 'flabby' response, then, considering its great detail. However, I'll introduce you to this online document. The link to it is ... The Legal War: A Justification for Military Action in Iraq | Gonzaga Journal of International Law

Here's an excerpt from it (lengthy though it is ...) ...

Article 51 of the UN Charter provides the rights of nations to defend themselves from threats to national security. Indeed, this right is considered independent of any treaty or convention under international law: “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right to individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measure necessary to maintain international peace and security.” This language makes clear that there is a right to defend one’s nation, or other nations, independent of Security Council approval.

The inherent right to self-defense was first enunciated in the Caroline incident. In 1837, a secret British military unit entered the United States and destroyed the American vessel Caroline, which had been aiding Canadian insurgents fighting against British rule. The incident resulted in the loss of the vessel as well as two American lives. Confronted by American officials, the British maintained that the attack on the Caroline was an act of self-defense. Daniel Webster, the US Secretary of State, wrote a letter in return, demanding that the British justify this claim by showing that the need for self-defense was:instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation…even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the territories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or excessive; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it. The British accepted this test by justifying its actions accordingly.

As has been explained by international scholars, the Caroline test requires that nations show that use of force is necessary due to an imminent threat, and that the response is proportionate to the threat. Accordingly, the decision to invade Iraq, if not justified by existing Security Council resolutions, would have to have been justified by an imminent threat coming from Iraq, one proportionate to a response such as regime change. While there most certainly was debate as to whether the threat emanating from Iraq was “imminent,” the United States has made clear that nations can no longer wait for threats to materialize in a post-Sept.11 world: For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat…

Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means…Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

The issue of whether or not Iraq had WMD's remained unresolved, and since Saddam was known to have friendly ties with terrorist groups (e.g Hamas, which he bankrolled !!) ... it followed that the sooner the whole issue was resolved, the better. The UN action was given a chance, but it proved it had no hope of resolving the Iraq issue: therefore, in accordance with the right to a defence against a belligerent power, accompanied by the 'serious consequences' clause of Resolution 1441, military action WAS LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE.

Here's another excerpt from that link ... perhaps you'll find it helpful. Or, perhaps you'll just ignore it ? Either way ....

In conclusion, the US-led coalition was justified in its invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Existing Security Council resolutions and authorization, coupled with Iraq’s continued breach of its obligations under those resolutions, show that there was license to enforce those duties by “all necessary means.” The Security Council never expressly extinguished authorization to use force under these resolutions, nor did it put a time limit on that authority. Resolutions 678 and 687 were still effective in 2002-2003, as evidenced by the language of Resolution 1441. Second, because the threat posed by Iraq’s non-compliance with weapons programs was grave, growing, and possibly imminent, the action to remove him from power was justifiable as an act of preemptive self-defense. The US has expressed the view that, in a post-Sept. 11 arena, nations cannot wait for an express declaration of war or other clear signs to designate a threat as “imminent.” Following the practice of numerous states over the past half-century, the US led a coalition to preemptively defend itself and other nations from the possibility of an Iraqi regime armed with WMD. Considering the costs of a WMD attack, regime change was an appropriate response to the Iraqi threat.

 

[RoshanNair]

The fighting spirit of the European peoples is gone. Leftism and political correctness are the pervasive forces which have rendered them weak and effeminate in the face of hostile alien creeds (Islam).

The likes of Charles Martel and John Sobieski I will be rolling in their grave at the current pathetic situation. Muslims are on the verge of conquering Europe.

 

[GLASNOST]

Your reply isn't exactly impressive, considering that you've ignored all I said in my last post !!

In your last post? You still don't get it. I don't entertain trolls very much. I stopped reading everything you've posted since that absurdly construed post #82 of yours. What part of that statement do you not understand?

 

[Drummond]

Your reply isn't exactly impressive, considering that you've ignored all I said in my last post !!

In your last post? You still don't get it. I don't entertain trolls very much. I stopped reading everything you've posted since that absurdly construed post #82 of yours. What part of that statement do you not understand?

I'll ignore the absurdity of your replying to something you claim not to have even read .... but, anyway ...

.... there it is, then. You just won't take any notice of anything that interferes with your cosy little belief-system; you're picking and choosing how to edit your personal perception of what's real and true. To be blunt ... sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la-la-la-la-la' is not something that responsible politicians across the world can do, when faced with difficult issues. It's not even a particularly sane or responsible thing to do in response to normal, everyday happenings in real life. Yet ... you think you should do it ...

Have fun with that. Me, and others ... we choose something much better. REAL life in the REAL world, and the tackling of REAL problems.

You should try it sometime. For one thing, it'll make fair and even-handed discussions a real possibility for you to enjoy. Though ... you will find you have to be open to new ideas, new perceptions, new truths ... could be fun, though maybe any Leftie chums you have won't approve (what a shame ..) .....

 

[GLASNOST]

I'll ignore the absurdity ...

Copying and pasting the lyrics to Yankee Doodle didn't increase your credibility one bit. But it's nice to know that you're thinking about it.

 

[Drummond]

I'll ignore the absurdity ...

Copying and pasting the lyrics to Yankee Doodle didn't increase your credibility one bit. But it's nice to know that you're thinking about it.

Oh, 'good' .. you're back to the abuse.

Look - you know, as do I, as do others reading this thread, that I've posted a good case for what I'm asserting to be true. You've not countered with anything disproving me, though you've had a great deal of opportunity to ... this is because you cannot.

I know it. You know it. Anyone impartially reading this thread will know it. Why not just admit you're wrong, that you're wedded to an agenda which insists on defying the reality involved, and be done with it ?

Then again - Lefties can never do that. Start, and it's like tugging on a loose thread of a tapestry ... the whole thing just unravels. NOT a good thing if you want to keep unsupportable propaganda intact, eh ?

 

[GLASNOST]

Look

Where?

 

[Drummond]

Look

Where?

In the direction of the truth, of course.

It's better than running away from it .....

 

[LuckyDuck]

Yesterday night i had a dream i saw lots of muslims praying in the streets, and they gave me a quran, after that they threatened that i need to be muslim and in the end they stabbed me with a knife and they tortured my mum (in the dream) i woke up and i realised this is the reality in many bigger European Cities like Paris and London and Brussels and Cologne etc already. Not that im against muslims, im totally no, just wanted to discuss, and see how others feel about the situation. Im actually neither right nor left, neither anti nor pro immigration. Its just a thought.

There's an old saying, "either sh*t or get off the pot." Do research on Islam's founder, its violent history, the Koran and Sharia Law. Once you've done that, think about the freedoms you and women have. Once you've done that, you will stop "sitting on the fence" and pick a side; hopefully, not the barbaric side.

 

[GLASNOST]

....... stop "sitting on the fence" and pick a side .....

Black or White, huh? You start a number of wars with those people then you tell the world, “You are either with us or you are with them.”

… and you are the reason there is war. Instigate a fight then demand for everyone else to 'pick a side'.

 

[Drummond]

....... stop "sitting on the fence" and pick a side .....

Black or White, huh? You start a number of wars with those people then you tell the world, “You are either with us or you are with them.”

… and you are the reason there is war. Instigate a fight then demand for everyone else to 'pick a side'.

Al Qaeda had nothing to do with it ? ISIS, ditto ?

In your world, are all acts that counter Islamic terrorists, and rogue regimes that'd support them, 'illegal' ... ?

The disgusting act of terrorism perpetrated on 11th September 2001 sparked off the War on Terror. It's a war that should never have been relaxed. It's a war we need to win.

- Or, in your world ... DON'T we ... ?

 

[LuckyDuck]

....... stop "sitting on the fence" and pick a side .....

Black or White, huh? You start a number of wars with those people then you tell the world, “You are either with us or you are with them.”

… and you are the reason there is war. Instigate a fight then demand for everyone else to 'pick a side'.

"Those people" have always been at war with infidel nations and their peoples. There is an old saying that rings true:
"Where a non-Muslim nation borders a Muslim nation, there is blood."
They are the enemy and always have been.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... "Those people" have always been at war with infidel nations and their peoples. There is an old saying that rings true:
"Where a non-Muslim nation borders a Muslim nation, there is blood."
They are the enemy and always have been.

You lack depth of earnestness. You've been terrorizing peoples and nations since the end of the Second World War. Communists, Latin Americans, Africans, Muslims, etc. and every time you light a match you start intimidated the rest of the world to pick a side - telling everyone, "You are either with us or you are against us." So you might be able to impress the kids in the High School parking lot at recess with your 'old sayings' ..... but I've been around the world and back again. I know a snake-oil salesman when I see one.

 

[Drummond]

..... "Those people" have always been at war with infidel nations and their peoples. There is an old saying that rings true:
"Where a non-Muslim nation borders a Muslim nation, there is blood."
They are the enemy and always have been.

You lack depth of earnestness. You've been terrorizing peoples and nations since the end of the Second World War. Communists, Latin Americans, Africans, Muslims, etc. and every time you light a match you start intimidated the rest of the world to pick a side - telling everyone, "You are either with us or you are against us." So you might be able to impress the kids in the High School parking lot at recess with your 'old sayings' ..... but I've been around the world and back again. I know a snake-oil salesman when I see one.

Trace for me the point of origin of the September 11th attack against America, in 2001, then. If you seriously claim that the savagery meted out that day, with approximately 3,000 dead, did NOT originate with Al Qaeda ... then tell me, with evidence to back you, what its real point of origin was .. how the attack ever came about.

Come on. You may not be open to the truth, you may not be interested in any evidence of it I bring your way .. but unlike you, I will note countering arguments and evidence to back them.

I'm offering you the fairness and even-handedness you've refused to offer me. Let's see if you can deliver ....