The Panama Deception

Options
1…8910111214»

Comments

  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    again, the sanctions were done by the UN in a DIRECT result of Saddam's breaking of your beloved international law and UN Resolutions. apparently those are only relevant when Israel breaks them eh?

    There's a difference between punishing a terrorist state like Israel that's engaged in ethnic cleansing, and in directly causing the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, along with countless other civilians in Iraq, simply because they happen to be Iraqi. The sanctions were imposed largely due to pressure by the U.S. Many other people at the U.N were disgusted by the effect they had on the Iraqi people and resigned.

    actually there is no difference. Iraq violated international law and UN resolutions. the penalty was sanations. you seem to only think those should apply to Israel and the US. and would certainly support every possible sanction Israel can get, even if it caused genocide. anyone else who violates them, you have a mountain of excuses. thats called hypocrisy in case you were wondering.


    jlew24asu wrote:
    OBL never mentioned anything about Bosnia. you are only creating your own justification for why we were attacked. you realize that right?

    You asked what reasons anyone may have had for attacking America prior to 9/11. I gave you a list.[/quote]

    but that was never a reason el queda used for attacking us. thats YOUR reason and justification. get it?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you...would certainly support every possible sanction Israel can get, even if it caused genocide.

    Sure Jlew. Whatever you say.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you...would certainly support every possible sanction Israel can get, even if it caused genocide.

    Sure Jlew. Whatever you say.

    I didnt think you'd have much else to say. bye bye
  • flywallyfly
    flywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    "Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy."

    Not sure who said that but they were dead on.
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    my guess is you know little to nothing about the Clinton years and the Monika Lewinsky scandal. no surprise there

    Sure Jlew. I know nothing, except that war with Afghanistan was delayed over an act of fellatio.

    no, war wasn't delayed. Clinton and his admin didn't feel war wasn't necessary at the time of the attacks in 93, 95, and 98. which in hindsight was a mistake because el queda grew in size and power...enough to attack us again. meanwhile, the biggest thing on Clinton's agenda was trying to not get impeached for lying about getting a blowjob in the oval office.

    do you really not know any of this? see, to Americans this is common knowledge. now if you need bolded colorful links, I'll be happy to provide them. if not, do some fucking research before embarrass yourself. opps too late.

    I think the biggest thing on Clinton's agenda was not letting the fact that he sold military secrets to the chinese blow up larger than it did. The blow job was just a very convenient cover for that.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Sludge Factory wrote:

    I think the biggest thing on Clinton's agenda was not letting the fact that he sold military secrets to the chinese blow up larger than it did. The blow job was just a very convenient cover for that.

    I'm not gonna lie, thats one part of the Clinton years I never really investigated myself. although I certainly heard alot about it in the media. I just never got to the bottom of it. but I agree, that also was something that caused him to look past the growing Islamic extremist problem.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    So, OBL's attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993, along with the attack on the U.S.S Cole, and the hotel bombings in Africa weren't deemed important enough at the time to warrant an invasion of Afghanistan?

    Also, what was the distraction which we can use to excuse Bush looking past 'the growing Islamic extremist problem' prior to 9/11 - despite the F.B.I presenting detailed evidence to the Bush Administration that an attack by Al Queda on U.S soil using commercial airliners was imminent?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    So, OBL's attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993, along with the attack on the U.S.S Cole, and the hotel bombings in Africa weren't deemed important enough at the time to warrant an invasion of Afghanistan?

    no. is this a serious question? what are you failing to understand here?
    Byrnzie wrote:
    S
    Also, what was the distraction which we can use to excuse Bush looking past 'the growing Islamic extremist problem' prior to 9/11 - despite the F.B.I presenting detailed evidence to the Bush Administration that an attack by Al Queda on U.S soil using commercial airliners was imminent?

    I dont know if Bush looked past it or not. but given he was only in office all of 6 months when we were attacked, I dont think he intended to start off his presidency by invading a country that hadn't attacked us in some time. he would have never gotten Congress approval for one.

    anything else?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited June 2009
    jlew24asu wrote:
    ...I dont think he intended to start off his presidency by invading a country that hadn't attacked us in some time. he would have never gotten Congress approval for one.


    Then how do you account for his instigating a massive bombing raid over Baghdad within two weeks of taking office?

    Edit: Come to think of it, when did Iraq, or Afghanistan, ever attack America?
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    ...I dont think he intended to start off his presidency by invading a country that hadn't attacked us in some time. he would have never gotten Congress approval for one.


    Then how do you account for his instigating a massive bombing raid over Baghdad within two weeks of taking office?

    because his entire administration, as well as his father, have had a hard on for Saddam since 91. and he had full UN approval to act within Iraq, short of invasion.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    he had full UN approval to act within Iraq, short of invasion.

    No he didn't:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

    Iraqi no-fly zones
    'While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger'
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    he had full UN approval to act within Iraq, short of invasion.

    No he didn't:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

    Iraqi no-fly zones
    'While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger'


    its all a matter of interpretation. the US, UK, and France saw the no fly zones as a way to enforce 688. no surprise you would agree with anyone who doesnt follow their interpretation. but I guarantee you would if it fit your agenda.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    its all a matter of interpretation.

    That old chestnut. Using semantics to justify your crimes.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    its all a matter of interpretation.

    That old chestnut. Using semantics to justify your crimes.

    your friends the Islamic extremists do it too when they interpret the Koran to kill all non-believers. but thats perfectly fine for you.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    your friends the Islamic extremists

    And what Islamic extremists might these be?
  • flywallyfly
    flywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    your friends the Islamic extremists

    And what Islamic extremists might these be?

    Anyone who doesnt agree with JLew's views.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    your friends the Islamic extremists

    And what Islamic extremists might these be?

    the Taliban and el queda.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    your friends the Islamic extremists

    And what Islamic extremists might these be?

    the Taliban and el queda.

    So now you're saying that I support the Taliban and Al Queda?

    Care to elaborate?

Categories