Favourite Invasion by US without UN backing poll.

[TonsOfFun]

So, it's a poll for your favourite invasion so far. But WITHOUT UN Backing as the list would be too big otherwise!

Edit - I want to add Honduras but I cannot. So it's open to list your own I haven't listed as I'm sure they'll be more :D

[sam i am]

First of all, this would be a much more enjoyable poll if you hadn't misspelled three of the countries' names above :rolleyes: -

It's Grenada, not Grenoda. It's Somalia, not Samalia. It's Dominican Republic, not Dominican Rebublic.

Secondly, let's review a few of your countries on the list, shall we, with a bit of historical perspective in mind :

Nicaragua : when did the US invade Nicaragua, exactly?

Afghanistan : why, again, did we invade Afghanistan? Who went with us? When did the UN NOt approve of it?

Iraq : same questions as Afghanistan.

Guatemala : never "invaded." Guatemalan army commanders deposed Arbenz.

Vietnam : when, exactly, did the US "invade" North Vietnam? Otherwise, we were invited and stayed in South Vietnam at the behest of the South Vietnamese government.

Iran : when, exactly, did the US invade Iran? Maybe you're confused with the British and Russians during WWII?

Yugoslavia : when, exactly did we invade Yugoslavia? Again, perhaps you are confused with the Germans, Italians, and Russians during WWII? Oh, you mean the UN and NATO interventions in Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia-Herzegovina? Yeah, real "invasions." :rolleyes:

Cuba : are you referring to the liberation of Cuba from the Spanish during the Spanish-American War, when Spain declared war on the United States? I thought so.

Panama : so we deposed Noriega. Sure, he was a great leader. Also, the US is still in Panama, controlling the country, eh? NOT.

Somalia : sure. Real invasion. Have you read or seen Black Hawk Down. We were SO successful there.

Grenada : 1983. We went in to save some US students from the same fate as the Iranian hostages in 1979. Any country that doesn't defend it's citizenry doesn't deserve to be a real country.

In context, your whole premise falls to pieces. Study your history. Remember the Monroe Doctrine of 1803 gives the US the RIGHT to manage the Western Hemisphere. When did the UN come along? 1945.

[100% ILL]

So, it's a poll for your favourite invasion so far. But WITHOUT UN Backing as the list would be too big otherwise!

Edit - I want to add Honduras but I cannot. So it's open to list your own I haven't listed as I'm sure they'll be more :D

I don't understand why you are (seemingly) trying to paint the US as a tyrant nation. UN approval is not necessary in order for the US to use military force.

[D_Raay]

The suit that the Sandinista government had brought against the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on April 9, 1984. In the suit, the Sandinista government charged that the United States had violated international law in recruiting, training, arming, equipping, financing, supplying, and otherwise encouraging, supporting, aiding, and directing military and paramilitary actions in and against Nicaragua. The ICJ ruled against the United States on June 27, 1986. But because the United States rejected the decision the case remained unresolved in April 1991.

In its decision, the ICJ ruled, twelve to three, that the United States had violated obligations not to intervene in another state's affairs, not to use force against another state, not to violate the sovereignty of another state, and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce. The ICJ also ruled that the United States had not abided by its 1956 Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation Treaty with Nicaragua. The ICJ ordered the United States to make reparations to Nicaragua but left a first attempt at setting the form and amount of reparations to agreement between the two parties. Because the United States rejected the ICJ's decision, no attempts were ever made at agreement, and in the 1990 transition period the National Assembly passed a law requiring future governments to proceed with the claim. Although the Chamorro government initially resisted spending its political capital to meet United States demands to drop the claim, President Chamorro told President Bush during her April 1991 state visit that she had introduced legislation to the National Assembly to repeal the law. In June 1991, forty-nine to one after the Sandinista deputies had walked out, the UNO coalition in the National Assembly voted to revoke the law. The Chamorro government subsequently notified the ICJ that it was dropping the claim.

[D_Raay]

The invasion of Grenada in late 1983 can be seen as a small part of the rivalry between the U.S. and Cuba during the Reagan years. A bloody coup in Grenada, along with a perceived threat to American students on the island provided the U.S. with an excellent excuse to eliminate a Marxist regime allied to Fidel Castro's Cuba.

[sam i am]

The suit that the Sandinista government had brought against the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on April 9, 1984. In the suit, the Sandinista government charged that the United States had violated international law in recruiting, training, arming, equipping, financing, supplying, and otherwise encouraging, supporting, aiding, and directing military and paramilitary actions in and against Nicaragua. The ICJ ruled against the United States on June 27, 1986. But because the United States rejected the decision the case remained unresolved in April 1991.

In its decision, the ICJ ruled, twelve to three, that the United States had violated obligations not to intervene in another state's affairs, not to use force against another state, not to violate the sovereignty of another state, and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce. The ICJ also ruled that the United States had not abided by its 1956 Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation Treaty with Nicaragua. The ICJ ordered the United States to make reparations to Nicaragua but left a first attempt at setting the form and amount of reparations to agreement between the two parties. Because the United States rejected the ICJ's decision, no attempts were ever made at agreement, and in the 1990 transition period the National Assembly passed a law requiring future governments to proceed with the claim. Although the Chamorro government initially resisted spending its political capital to meet United States demands to drop the claim, President Chamorro told President Bush during her April 1991 state visit that she had introduced legislation to the National Assembly to repeal the law. In June 1991, forty-nine to one after the Sandinista deputies had walked out, the UNO coalition in the National Assembly voted to revoke the law. The Chamorro government subsequently notified the ICJ that it was dropping the claim.

Nice research. Still doesn't mean the US "invaded" Nicaragua. AND, despite later treaties or the ICJ, the Monroe Doctrine was, is, and will remain bedrock US policy for the forseeable future.

BTW, the ICJ also indicted Sadaam Hussein but still hasn't had any of it's rulings enforced regarding him.

[checkyourprez]

Remember the Monroe Doctrine of 1803 gives the US the RIGHT to manage the Western Hemisphere.



hah i dont really see how a US made doctrine gives us the right to do any of that. hilter did a bunch of shit just because he made laws that let him. was that cool?

[sam i am]

hah i dont really see how a US made doctrine gives us the right to do any of that. hilter did a bunch of shit just because he made laws that let him. was that cool?

Nope. But might does TEND to make right, if you study history. Until enough people got sick of Hitler's shit and ganged up to kick his ass, his military ran circles around Europe and nearly won WWII before the US got involved (by Hitler declaring war on the US when he didn't have to).

So.....my point was that the Monroe Doctrine has been in place since 1803. No country has truly been able to imperil American hegemony over the Western hemisphere since. None will. If the above poll was meant to indict the US, it did a piss-poor job by not taking into account all of the historical facts.

[DroppinScience]

I personally get fuzzy, warm feelings for Panama. Operation Just Cause? Man, they sure knew how to name their operations back then.

[sam i am]

I personally get fuzzy, warm feelings for Panama. Operation Just Cause? Man, they sure knew how to name their operations back then.

Amen, brother. Call it whatever you like, but it was still an extension of the Monroe Doctrine.

BTW, have you seen our occupation troops in Panama recently, controlling the flow of goods through the Panama Canal and waging war on all our Central American neighbors?

[sam i am]

sorry....double-posted accidentally

[DroppinScience]

Some of your poll choices are a little disengenious, even though I had a chuckle. Afghanistan was backed by the UN. Yugoslavia got NATO blessings.

If you were going for tongue-in-cheek humor, you've succeeded. In history class, well... not quite. ;)

[sam i am]

Some of your poll choices are a little disengenious, even though I had a chuckle. Afghanistan was backed by the UN. Yugoslavia got NATO blessings.

If you were going for tongue-in-cheek humor, you've succeeded. In history class, well... not quite. ;)

DS, this is the current state of education of the Socialists in Europe, believe me. They believe this shit.

[DroppinScience]

DS, this is the current state of education of the Socialists in Europe, believe me. They believe this shit.

My burning question is: where all the polls for favorite US invasion BEFORE the UN was created?

I'll go for the Phillipines in 1898. "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!" :cool:

(Nah, Spain is cool. For Whom The Bell Tolls, baby)

[sam i am]

My burning question is: where all the polls for favorite US invasion BEFORE the UN was created?

I'll go for the Phillipines in 1898. "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!" :cool:

(Nah, Spain is cool. For Whom The Bell Tolls, baby)

Except for the Spanish declaring war on the US, I'd agree with ya!

Sorry to burst your bubble there, but the Phillipines were fighting for independence just like the Cubans. While we mostly got out of Cuba, the Phillipines were "occupied" by the US until WWII, even though they were a Commonwealth and this was during a time when "colonies" were still in vogue, so to speak.

[synch]

I don't understand why you are (seemingly) trying to paint the US as a tyrant nation. UN approval is not necessary in order for the US to use military force.
I was wondering why a nation would use a document from the nineteenth century to dictate their foreign policy but I realised that it was useless to give that too much thought considering most of the foreign and domestic policy is based on a far older one.

[FearandLoathing]

I voted Yugoslavia. I've only met a handful of people who knew anything about the former- Yugoslavia, so I guess I feel sorry for it.

[Ace42X]

Nicaragua : when did the US invade Nicaragua, exactly?

http://www.tldm.org/news3/Nicaragua.htm

Afghanistan : why, again, did we invade Afghanistan?

Because it was blocking the caspian-sea pipeline, due to the Taliban refusing to play ball with American oil, after getting a better offer from their former enemies, the Russians. The Talibani leaders met with your beloved president and his associates about this very deal.

Who went with us?

Irrelevant, even if the Pope himself rode in on a trike, whistling America the Beautiful and waving the flag.

When did the UN NOt approve of it?

Because: 1. You never asked; 2. There was no justification; 3. You didn't even attempt a diplomatic solution; 4. It would cause gret bloodshed, massive civil unrest; 5. It was an idiotic operation from the start.

Iraq : same questions as Afghanistan.

Pretty much the same answers. Oil, that the plan was illegal, and that the UN isn't in the business of giving approval to megalomaniacal tyrants, even if it is "their shit don't stink" US of A.

Guatemala : never "invaded." Guatemalan army commanders deposed Arbenz.

Semantics. If you WANT to play that game;

in·va·sion Audio pronunciation of "invasion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vzhn)
n.

1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
3. An intrusion or encroachment.

The presence of US forces or arms into the region is an intrusion and an encroachment. It is the *entry* of the armed forces, not the end result that is of consequence.

Vietnam : when, exactly, did the US "invade" North Vietnam?

There were numerous sorties into North Vietnamese territories during the war. Secondly, given you have, in the past, argumed might is right, as the North Vietnamese eventually gaiend the whole country, that makes the SV position unjustified and the US being asked to stay in the North's territory irrelevant.

Iran : when, exactly, did the US invade Iran?

You don't remember Jimmy Carter attempting the hostage rescue?

Panama : so we deposed Noriega. Sure, he was a great leader. Also, the US is still in Panama, controlling the country, eh? NOT.

That is like saying the Romans didn't invade Briton because they went home a few centuries later.

Somalia : sure. Real invasion. Have you read or seen Black Hawk Down. We were SO successful there.

Success is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the definition.

Grenada : 1983. We went in to save some US students from the same fate as the Iranian hostages in 1979. Any country that doesn't defend it's citizenry doesn't deserve to be a real country.

Very specious reasoning. You failed to save the people in the WTC.

In context, your whole premise falls to pieces. Study your history.

I'd say the same to you, and maybe consult the dictionary while you are at it.

[Funkaloyd]

Grenada : 1983. We went in to save some US students from the same fate as the Iranian hostages in 1979.So you went to Grenada to covertly sell the government arms?

[EN[i]GMA]

Because it was blocking the caspian-sea pipeline, due to the Taliban refusing to play ball with American oil, after getting a better offer from their former enemies, the Russians. The Talibani leaders met with your beloved president and his associates about this very deal.

I've heard this before, but was the pipeline ever actually built or is it in the process of being built?

[valvano]

why not include invasions prior to the creation of the UN??

:confused:

[Ace42X]

GMA']I've heard this before, but was the pipeline ever actually built or is it in the process of being built?

Recently completed I believe I saw on the news.

why not include invasions prior to the creation of the UN??

Read the topic.

[zorra_chiflada]

DS, this is the current state of education of the Socialists in Europe, believe me. They believe this shit.

that's a stupid thing to say. someone from europe disagrees with you, "oh, blame the socialists" :rolleyes:

the education system of what you see as the "evil socialists" is no more propaganda-based than the educational system of your beloved capitalist country.

[D_Raay]

Glad you're back Ace (y)

[Ali]

DS, this is the current state of education of the Socialists in Europe, believe me. They believe this shit.
Sometimes, you really, really make yourself look like a Hillbilly, sam. This is one of those occasions. You're capable of some rational discourse and then you throw all credibility away with one idiotic comment. What a shame.

You berate me for my haranguing of Bush and Blair, I will do the same to you whenever you get all McCarthy on us about the "Socialists in Europe". Pathetic, stupid comment. Come and live in Europe and then tell us how Socialist it is and how terrible Socialism is. Until then, keep your opinions to yourself, unless you want to look like a prat!

Aaarrggh! Hot button again! :mad:

Back to the topic. Here are a few of my favourite covert US operations, aimed at destabilising foreign governments. Let's see what sort of spin gets put on these operations...

Cuba (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1)

Iran/Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair)

Angola (http://www.serendipity.li/cia/stock1.html)

Venezuela (http://www.counterpunch.org/blum0414.html)

Cold War, Vietnam, U-2 Scandal, etc. (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/)

The last link is to a very interesting book, written by a retired Air Force Briefing Officer who had an intimate relationship with the CIA for a very long time and is not bound by the normal code of secrecy which .

You may have difficulty getting hold of a printed copy of the book, as copies seem to mysteriously disappear from warehouses and never make it to book stores. In fact, it almost didn't get published at all!
After I had given the manuscript of the original draft of this book to my editor at Prentice-Hall, in 1972; and had received the galley proof of the first edition back from him, he called me to suggest that I keep it in a safe place at all times. He told me that his home had been broken into the night before, and he suspected it was an attempt to steal his copy of that galley proof. He said, "They didn't get it. It was under the seat of the Volkswagon."
A few days later a nationwide release by the well-known Washington columnist, Jack Anderson, appeared across the country, "Book Bares CIA's Dirty Tricks". In that column, Anderson reported that the CIA had contacted a well-known bookstore in Washington and asked one of the employees to see if he could get a copy of the galley from me, and agreed to pay him $500, if he did. I agreed to meet him at my home that evening.

I suspected his call, but invited him anyway. In the meantime I set up a tape recorder in the umbrella stand near my front door and arranged for it to turn on when I switched on the overhead light on the front porch. With that arrangement, I recorded the whole visit including his final burst, "They promised me $500.00, if I got that galley proof." I took that tape to Anderson, and it was the basis of his March 6, 1973 column. The underground attack didn't quit there.

After excellent early sales of The Secret Team during which Prentice-Hall printed three editions of the book, and it had received more than 100 favorable reviews, I was invited to meet Ian Ballantine, the founder of Ballantine Books. He told me that he liked the book and would publish 100,000 copies in paperback as soon as he could complete the deal with Prentice-Hall. Soon there were 100,000 paperbacks in bookstores all around the country.

Then one day a business associate in Seattle called to tell me that the bookstore next to his office building had had a window full of books the day before, and none the day of his call. They claimed they had never had the book. I called other associates around the country. I got the same story from all over the country. The paperback had vanished. At the same time I learned that Mr. Ballantine had sold his company. I traveled to New York to visit the new "Ballantine Books" president. He professed to know nothing about me, and my book. That was the end of that surge of publication. For some unknown reason Prentice-Hall was out of my book also. It became an extinct species.

Coincidental to that, I received a letter from a Member of Parliament in Canberra, Australia, who wrote that he had been in England recently visiting in the home of a friend who was a Member of the British Parliament. While there, he discovered The Secret Team on a coffee table and during odd hours had begun to read it.

Upon return to Canberra he sent his clerk to get him a copy of the book. Not finding it in the stores, the clerk had gone to the Customs Office where he learned that 3,500 copies of The Secret Team had arrived, and on that same date had been purchased by a Colonel from the Royal Australian Army. The book was dead everywhere.

The campaign to kill the book was nationwide and world-wide. It was removed from the Library of Congress and from College libraries as letters I received attested all too frequently. I've read the book by downloading it to a PDA, but you could print a chapter at a time and read it like that.

Very interesting indeed.

[sam i am]

http://www.tldm.org/news3/Nicaragua.htm

Ok. So a PLANNED invasion is the same as an invasion, hmmm? So, let's indict and try and convict EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in the world for contingency planning. I'm sure that there's no plans in France or Britain or any other wonderful country you name to defend or attack in case of problems in other areas of interest to them, hmmm? Please. This is the MOST ridiculous link you've come up with yet.

Because it was blocking the caspian-sea pipeline, due to the Taliban refusing to play ball with American oil, after getting a better offer from their former enemies, the Russians. The Talibani leaders met with your beloved president and his associates about this very deal.

Sure. 9/11 had NOTHING to do with it? Alright. Believe what you want. I agree that the pipeline was important BEFORE 9/11, but after, all that mattered was that Osama was there (and probably still is).

Irrelevant, even if the Pope himself rode in on a trike, whistling America the Beautiful and waving the flag.

Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. There is no objectivity when it comes to this subject. All of it is subjective, therefore we can either get into a pissing match or we can agree to disagree, because your subjectivity is just as subject to easy dismissal as mine.

Because: 1. You never asked; 2. There was no justification; 3. You didn't even attempt a diplomatic solution; 4. It would cause gret bloodshed, massive civil unrest; 5. It was an idiotic operation from the start.

Let's see. A country that harbors the one who ordered 9/11 refuses to give him up and supports wholeheartedly his efforts to destroy and kill Americans and we should ASK for permission from the UN to invade and get that guy? Are you on crack? We DID attempt a diplomatic solution : we DEMANDED that the Taliban hand over Bin Laden. They refused and faced the consequences. Your points 4 & 5 are not even worthy of comment.

Pretty much the same answers. Oil, that the plan was illegal, and that the UN isn't in the business of giving approval to megalomaniacal tyrants, even if it is "their shit don't stink" US of A.

Oil, shmoil. Look at the production and import of oil to the US on my other thread. Iraq is 4% of US imports. Sorry, your point is completely invalidated by reality.

Semantics. If you WANT to play that game;

OK. Semantics. Like you never employ semantics to make your points or garner support for your point of view. C'mon, ace, you are better than that. You are the king of damning with faint praise, the backhanded slap of false reasoning, and pithy commentary and you accuse ME of semantics?

The presence of US forces or arms into the region is an intrusion and an encroachment. It is the *entry* of the armed forces, not the end result that is of consequence.

I guess an "intrusion and an encroachment," if you want to stretch it far enough, could easily include agents of one government in another country gathering data and information by use of their government employer. Name one single country in the world that DOESN'T do that.

There were numerous sorties into North Vietnamese territories during the war. Secondly, given you have, in the past, argumed might is right, as the North Vietnamese eventually gaiend the whole country, that makes the SV position unjustified and the US being asked to stay in the North's territory irrelevant.

Sorties are not the same as invasions. Sorties are not the same as invasions. Sorties are not the same as invasions. Additionally, I have NOT argued that might makes right. I HAVE argued that might TENDS to make right. There is a clear distinction there. When was the US asked to stay in the North's territory exactly?

You don't remember Jimmy Carter attempting the hostage rescue?

Let's see....you are equating a hostage rescue with an invasion. Interesting logic there. Completely specious and unreasoned, but nice try anyways.

That is like saying the Romans didn't invade Briton because they went home a few centuries later.

A few centuries is EXACTLY like a decade or two, eh ace? Although your wordsmithery might be strong, I guess mathematics was not your strong subject in school. Besides which your analogy is completely unanalogous.

Success is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the definition.

Sure. Tell that to the defeated throughout history that have been unable to write their stories due to the conquest by a stronger power. To the victors go the spoils and the ability to write the history. Period.

Very specious reasoning. You failed to save the people in the WTC.

Unapt analogy on your part. The WTC is not even close to the same as an invasion. 9/11 was an unannounced attack and terrorism.

I'd say the same to you, and maybe consult the dictionary while you are at it.

Sure. Your dictionary definitions have always been the same as mine. So, you must be completely correct and I must be completely wrong. :rolleyes:

[sam i am]

Sometimes, you really, really make yourself look like a Hillbilly, sam. This is one of those occasions. You're capable of some rational discourse and then you throw all credibility away with one idiotic comment. What a shame.

Thanks, ali. I can't even express in words how much your designation of me as a "hillbilly" really impacts and detracts from my ability to cognitively and thoroughly discourse on the subject at hand. Your one word of dismissal is so rationally backed up and explanatory of my worldview that all I can do is sit back in stunned amazement at my own lack of cognition and rationality. I appreciate so much your ability to put me in my place at the dinner table of debate.

You berate me for my haranguing of Bush and Blair, I will do the same to you whenever you get all McCarthy on us about the "Socialists in Europe". Pathetic, stupid comment. Come and live in Europe and then tell us how Socialist it is and how terrible Socialism is. Until then, keep your opinions to yourself, unless you want to look like a prat!

I don't believe I "berated" you for haranguing Bush and Blair. I believe I asked for more information as to why you felt and feel the way you do about them. I guess the inquistion for more information could be mistaken for beration, and I apologize heartily if that was the case. I do believe, as strongly as you believe that we are indoctrinated in the US by our capitalist system, that you are indoctrinated by your Socialist education system. So, where does that leave us? With the inability to dialogue due to our ingrained biases and prejudices perpetrated upon us by our governmental systems? All well and good if that is the course you'd like to take, but I was under the impression that we were attempting to talk again. Guess not, with your admonishment to me to "keep my opinions to myself." Same to you, bub.

Aaarrggh! Hot button again! :mad:

I guess so. Just because it is a hot button for you, however, does NOT give you the right or the permission to be uncivil to me. If you'd like to revoke our rappaproachment in favor of going off on each other again, please let me know. Elsewise, please limit your stridency to the topic at hand and refrain from personal insults and admonishments from on high.

Thank you. :)

[sam i am]

Back to the topic. Here are a few of my favourite covert US operations, aimed at destabilising foreign governments. Let's see what sort of spin gets put on these operations...

Cuba (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1)

Iran/Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair)

Angola (http://www.serendipity.li/cia/stock1.html)

Venezuela (http://www.counterpunch.org/blum0414.html)

Cold War, Vietnam, U-2 Scandal, etc. (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/)

Very interesting indeed.

Ok. So.....covert operations and invasions are now the same or on par with each other?

Very interesting indeed.

[Ace42X]

Ok.

Actually, the nefarious actions of the US in central america speak for themselves, that's just the first link I googled. That the US has been staging militant interventions in most central and south-american nations is undeniable. World of information there.

Sure. 9/11 had NOTHING to do with it? Alright. Believe what you want. I agree that the pipeline was important BEFORE 9/11, but after, all that mattered was that Osama was there (and probably still is).

Hah, if that was the case he wouldn't've gotten away. Next you'll be telling me Iraq was about WMD, even though the US seized the oil ministry first.

Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. There is no objectivity when it comes to this subject.

Bullshit. Having other people on board doesn't change a goddamn thing. It's not subjective, it is cold hard logic. Now matter how many people break the law, it doesn't make it any less illegal.

Let's see. A country that harbors the one who ordered 9/11 refuses to give him up and supports wholeheartedly his efforts to destroy and kill Americans and we should ASK for permission from the UN to invade and get that guy? Are you on crack? We DID attempt a diplomatic solution : we DEMANDED that the Taliban hand over Bin Laden. They refused and faced the consequences.

Heh, DEMANDING people comply is NOT a diplomatic solution. Secondly, the Taliban were demanding evidence of guilt before handing *anyone* over to the US. The US refused to / was unable to give any evidence and thus the point was moot.

HOWEVER, if Osama had managed to make it to UK soil, the UK government would've been unable to deport him to the US due to our laws. By *your* argument the US government would have some bizarre divine right to attack *my* country for not turning him over, and the fact that the UN was against it would be irrelevant.

Oh, and the family of a murderer man are NOT intitled to "kill the policemen who refuse to turn the criminal over to mob-rule." even in your fucked up country's lawbooks.

What they did was act perfectly reasonably, and faced the consequences of expecting your fucked up nation to behave rationally, ethically and lawfully.

Oil, shmoil. Look at the production and import of oil to the US on my other thread. Iraq is 4% of US imports. Sorry, your point is completely invalidated by reality.

Yes, if you have your head so much up your ass you are unable to function correctly.

Even if Canada produced 98% of the US's oil *needs* (not just importation), that 2% shot-fall from other nations would still mean cars without petrol, houses without fuel, shops without plastics. Furthermore that is/was 4% at the time of the survery. It is not the percentage the nation will be able to provide once sanctions on the US puppet government are lifted, and the US has built an infrastructure which involves Iraq pumping all its oil to the US directly, rather than via the UN.

Also, more than 75% of Iraq's oil revenue came from oil-smuggling. That's a HELLUVA lot of crude that can now flow to the US.

Bot don't think your over-simplification of the facts isn't *pretty*.

the backhanded slap of false reasoning

False reasoning is whatever doesn't suit your ideology.

in·vade Audio pronunciation of "invade" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vd)
v. in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades
v. tr.

1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: “The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval” (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: “About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco” (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate,

It's there in black and white, man. Argue with the dictionary if you want. Get them to reword it to suit your argument. Then come back and tell us how right you were.

Sorties are not the same as invasions.

If you are in someone else's country (invading) then any military operation cannot be anything *but* a sortie.

sor·tie Audio pronunciation of "sortie" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sôrt, sôr-t)
n.

1. An armed attack, especially one made from a place surrounded by enemy forces.

And you can't tell me that the soldiers going into North Vietnam were not "entering in order to conquer" - what, they were going there for the food? Or just because your nation is made up of barbarians who just like to kill for killing's sake?

Let's see....you are equating a hostage rescue with an invasion. Interesting logic there. Completely specious and unreasoned, but nice try anyways.

"To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage."

Taking /re-taking hostages counts as pillaging.

A few centuries is EXACTLY like a decade or two, eh ace? Although your wordsmithery might be strong, I guess mathematics was not your strong subject in school. Besides which your analogy is completely unanalogous.

See, now you come across as a gibbering fool. Firstly, the analogy is compeltely analagous, as any boob could see. Secondly, suggesting that the difference is scale renders the argument moot is fallacious. You cannot give a single definition of "invasion" which says "the territory needs to be occupied for precisely one day more than 'a decade or two, eh?' A day, a week, a month a year, all irrelevant except in your own mind. The fact that the US invasions were less permanent that the Roman one in Britain has no bearing on anything. Particularly as the definition clearly and specifically says "in order to conquer" not "having sucessfully conquered for more than a decade or two."

If you are going to act smug and self-satisfied, at least have the common decency to be in the right about it.

Sure. Tell that to the defeated throughout history that have been unable to write their stories due to the conquest by a stronger power. To the victors go the spoils and the ability to write the history. Period.

That is wrong in so many ways. Firstly, as I said, success has no bearing on whether something constitutes an invasion or not. Again, take it up with the dictionary if you feel you know better than every other English speaker on the face of the planet. Secondly, it is fallacious to think that the popular understanding of events constitutes "truth" or "reality."

Even if no-one believed the world was round, it would not cease to be round. Even if every book ever said it was flat, and no-one said it was round, it would still be round. Your attempts to deflect this into epistemology / philosophy are rather sad, given that I would like nothing more than to take you into this area, as I doubt you are well enough read in the field to actually know the arguments involved at all.

Unapt analogy on your part. The WTC is not even close to the same as an invasion. 9/11 was an unannounced attack and terrorism.

"Any country that doesn't defend it's citizenry doesn't deserve to be a real country." - That is what you said.

If you meant "Any country that doesn't repel an invasion doesn't deserve to be a real country" - say THAT. By applying simple socratic methodology to your argument, I proved that either: 1. The US doesn't deserve to be a country (a statement I'd agree with) or 2. You were speaking bullshit (also likely).

Take your pick, but don't try to fault the faultless logic just because you can't form a coherant argument.

Not that your subjective and vague opinions about what countries do and do not deserve are particularly insightful or relevant either way.

Sure. Your dictionary definitions have always been the same as mine. So, you must be completely correct and I must be completely wrong.

Actually, if you recall, I was using the dictionary.com to shed light on your misinterpretation of the rubric of the definition you gave (that concetration and centralisation weren't synonymous, even though the two words clearly and undeniably are).

[sam i am]

It's there in black and white, man. Argue with the dictionary if you want. Get them to reword it to suit your argument. Then come back and tell us how right you were.

Ok, smart-ass.....here you go : you have quite cleverly ATTEMPTED to twist the conversation to make out that you are correct and I am wrong. Well, here's the truth....

Dictionary definition of INVADE (from which invasion gets its root meaning) :

To enter by force IN ORDER TO CONQUER OR OVERRUN.

Conquer : To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms.

Overrun : To attack and defeat conclusively.

CONTEXT ( aterm with which you are sorely not familiar with by your obvious pretensions towards grandeur unsubstantiated by the efficacy of your arguments nor the strength or character of your logic) : The part of a written or spoken statement in which a word or passage AT ISSUE occurs; that which LEADS UP TO and FOLLOWS and often SPECIFIES the MEANIN of a particular expression.

Employ context and you'll not be so hasty to dismiss my posts in the future. Dismiss context at your own peril of invalidating all of your own posts.

[sam i am]

"To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage."

Taking /re-taking hostages counts as pillaging.

Sure it does. And the sky is green and the moon is made of green cheese.

Talk about looking like (and especially sounding like) a "gibbering fool!"

Pillage : To ROB of goods by violent seizure; plunder.

So, in your stretch-anything-to-make-my-point paradigm, I guess the hostgaes counted as "goods?" :confused:

You are more and more, ace, proving yourself to be a completely unworthy debate opponent. You might be a master of damning with faint praise. You might even do well at twisting and turning words in order to make them suit your needs. Do NOT, however, confuse your so-called cleverness and self-described high intellectual capacity with the ACTUAL ability to form cogent, coherent arguments that are relevant to the subject at hand. Try formulating well-thought out sentences and actual structure of linguistics prior to berating (or baiting) me with your callous wordsmithery.

[D_Raay]

Dictionary.com must be a left leaning organization misconstruing actual meaning to suit the radical ideas of leftists.

[Ace42X]

Ok, smart-ass.....here you go : you have quite cleverly ATTEMPTED to twist the conversation to make out that you are correct and I am wrong.

"Attempted to" ?

To enter by force IN ORDER TO CONQUER OR OVERRUN.

Even using your definition (as opposed to dictionary.com's or the OED's) it still says "in order to" - not "and then suceed for a period of greater than twenty years"

Conquer : To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms.

So the US is sending *armed troops* into countries with no intention of defeating or subduing by force?

Overrun : To attack and defeat conclusively.

And when the US sends armed troops into combat, it isn't in order to "defeat conclusively" ? The US sends them in with the intention of losing? That's pretty poor governance in my book.

Employ context and you'll not be so hasty to dismiss my posts in the future. Dismiss context at your own peril of invalidating all of your own posts.

Yes, if you weren't so full of shit that it was leaking out your ears that might be a good point. However, as you seem to think that context can make "black" mean "white" and that actually *using words* is irrelevant, as your *context* magically transforms a sentence to mean whatever the author intends it to, clearly conversing with you is pointless.

Afterall, when you say "The grass is black" - clearly the CONTEXT of the sentence changes its meaning to be something indefinable that no-one else can hope to grasp.

[Ace42X]

So, in your stretch-anything-to-make-my-point paradigm, I guess the hostgaes counted as "goods?"

Check the dictionary definition. "Goods" means "commodities." What is a hostage if not a commodity?

Do NOT, however, confuse your so-called cleverness and self-described high intellectual capacity with the ACTUAL ability to form cogent, coherent arguments that are relevant to the subject at hand.

Heaven forbid that I should confuse me using words literally
in grammatically correct sentences to form logically sound non-contradictory statements with "coherant argument."

Which in your case seems to consist of being unable to avoid a logical fallacy, no matter how distant it is from the topic in hand.

Try formulating well-thought out sentences and actual structure of linguistics prior to berating (or baiting) me with your callous wordsmithery.

Yes, I am impressed that you put some effort into that. Now if you only put as much effort into forming a logical progression to your argument as you did into failing to score points off me, you might actually come across as something other than an ass.

Oh, and if you had been awake for more than 24 hours straight like *I* have (as is evidenced by my continual posting throughout the day) chances are you would be unable to even construct a sentence in order to impugn my posting.

[Qdrop]

C'mon, ace, you are better than that. You are the king of damning with faint praise, the backhanded slap of false reasoning, and pithy commentary and you accuse ME of semantics?

daaaamn!


You are more and more, ace, proving yourself to be a completely unworthy debate opponent. You might be a master of damning with faint praise. You might even do well at twisting and turning words in order to make them suit your needs. Do NOT, however, confuse your so-called cleverness and self-described high intellectual capacity with the ACTUAL ability to form cogent, coherent arguments that are relevant to the subject at hand. Try formulating well-thought out sentences and actual structure of linguistics prior to berating (or baiting) me with your callous wordsmithery.
boy, didn't take you long to peg him.

[sam i am]

daaaamn!



boy, didn't take you long to peg him.

Thank you, Q. I've been waiting for you to chime in. (y)

[Qdrop]

Thank you, Q. I've been waiting for you to chime in. (y)

i mean, i don't hate Ace (used to when i first chatted with him)...i think he is very bright and well read.
but i agree that he tends go off on manufactured tangents of semantics and miscontrued logic, whilst throwing in few personal attacks, to attempt to gain a "percieved advantage".

his greatest skill IS, in fact, his wordsmithing. Kudos for realizing.
he has great depth at vocubulary and wordplay, and can use it to instantly create a perception of high intellect and regality....while actually actually hiding some of his weaker reasoning, and often specious stetches in logic.
he is mostly intimidation...

i don't want to go so far as to call him "smoke and mirrors"...i enjoy debatingn with him now, and i think we have a fair respect for each other.
he brings up good points and usually backs them well.
he is also tenacious....which i respect.

but it is important to recognize his favorite debate tactics: bait, switch topic/switch the point of debate/switch ANYTHING (deflection), personal attacks (bullying)....

his MO never changes...

but i'm glad he's back...he makes it more exciting here...

[sam i am]

i mean, i don't hate Ace (used to when i first chatted with him)...i think he is very bright and well read.
but i agree that he tends go off on manufactured tangents of semantics and misconstrued logic, whilst throwing in a few personal attacks, to attempt to gain a "percieved advantage".

his greatest skill IS, in fact, his wordsmithing. Kudos for realizing.
he has great depth at vocubulary and wordplay, and can use it to instantly create a perception of high intellect and regality....while actually hiding some of his weaker reasoning, and often specious stretches in logic.
he is mostly intimidation...

i don't want to go so far as to call him "smoke and mirrors"...i enjoy debating with him now, and i think we have a fair respect for each other.
he brings up good points and usually backs them well.
he is also tenacious....which i respect.

but it is important to recognize his favorite debate tactics: bait, switch topic/switch the point of debate/switch ANYTHING (deflection), personal attacks (bullying)....

his MO never changes...

but i'm glad he's back...he makes it more exciting here...

I'm with you. I've enjoyed him as well and I do admire his innate abilities. However, I do NOT appreciate his personal attacks and backhanded insults.

So, as long as we stick to the actual debating, I don't mind. His implicatory skills, utilized in order to intimidate, only mask the weakness of his arguments, not augment them.

[Ace42X]

All very fine pontifications. No doubt you feel you have the dynamics formulated, marshalled.

[Qdrop]

All very fine pontifications. No doubt you feel you have the dynamics formulated, marshalled.

nothing but love, ace.

[Ace42X]

nothing but love, ace.

And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?
And how should I presume?

[sam i am]

And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?
And how should I presume?

Presume away, poet. :cool:

[Qdrop]

And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?
And how should I presume?

see, it's nice to see THIS side of you sometimes....

[Ace42X]

see, it's nice to see THIS side of you sometimes....

The TS Elliot side?

[Qdrop]

The TS Elliot side?

the semi-artistic side.

not bullying, not condescending....








i mean, everyone knows i do plenty of that (egotistical bullying) too.....but hey, gotta be well rounded...

[sam i am]

the semi-artistic side.

not bullying, not condescending....

I mean, everyone knows i do plenty of that (egotistical bullying) too.....but hey, gotta be well rounded...

Amen to that, brother.

[D_Raay]

Go back and READ the posts again. None of my business, but the only lucid argument is Ace's, sam's are dogmatic. Semantics , in the true sense of the word, are all you have sam.

[sam i am]

Go back and READ the posts again. None of my business, but the only lucid argument is Ace's, sam's are dogmatic. Semantics , in the true sense of the word, are all you have sam.

D_Raay, of course you would agree with ace. You both argue from an emotional standpoint, moving on to another point as soon as your tissue of arguments are shredded by the thresher of logic, context, and perspective.

Continue to FEEL as if you are lucid, but once the drugs wear off (or you get some sleep, in ace's case), you should feel ashamed that you only saw the dogmatism without seeing the light.

[D_Raay]

D_Raay, of course you would agree with ace. You both argue from an emotional standpoint, moving on to another point as soon as your tissue of arguments are shredded by the thresher of logic, context, and perspective.

Continue to FEEL as if you are lucid, but once the drugs wear off (or you get some sleep, in ace's case), you should feel ashamed that you only saw the dogmatism without seeing the light.
Bullshit. And I don't take drugs. We leftists aren't all hippies you know. Some of us actually take being leftist seriously, instead of siding with corrupt, money hungering, war mongers.

I can't speak for Ace, but what I see from you is a constant pirouette around the truth, thus thoroughly debunking any position you may think you have as far as lucidity goes.

[EN[i]GMA]

i mean, i don't hate Ace (used to when i first chatted with him)...i think he is very bright and well read.
but i agree that he tends go off on manufactured tangents of semantics and miscontrued logic, whilst throwing in few personal attacks, to attempt to gain a "percieved advantage".

his greatest skill IS, in fact, his wordsmithing. Kudos for realizing.
he has great depth at vocubulary and wordplay, and can use it to instantly create a perception of high intellect and regality....while actually actually hiding some of his weaker reasoning, and often specious stetches in logic.
he is mostly intimidation...

i don't want to go so far as to call him "smoke and mirrors"...i enjoy debatingn with him now, and i think we have a fair respect for each other.
he brings up good points and usually backs them well.
he is also tenacious....which i respect.

but it is important to recognize his favorite debate tactics: bait, switch topic/switch the point of debate/switch ANYTHING (deflection), personal attacks (bullying)....

his MO never changes...

but i'm glad he's back...he makes it more exciting here...

Yes... Ace and I have had quite the verbal spat on a few occasions as well.

[sam i am]

Bullshit. And I don't take drugs. We leftists aren't all hippies you know. Some of us actually take being leftist seriously, instead of siding with corrupt, money hungering, war mongers.

I can't speak for Ace, but what I see from you is a constant pirouette around the truth, thus thoroughly debunking any position you may think you have as far as lucidity goes.

See Enigma's and Q's comments as well. I am not the only one who feels like ace doesn't live up to his end of the bargain in the marketplace of ideas-debate.

Now, I DO want to apologize for implying any drug usage on your part. That was unwarranted on my part and I completely regret an impugning of your character, D_Raay, in that vein. I was employing a rhetorical device, but it came off, when I re-read it, as unscrupulously derogatory. Again, I hope you accept my apology.

As for my "constant pirouette around the truth," well, you may have a point there as far as your INTERPRETATION of the truth. As far as objective truth, well, who among us can say that we have NO subjectivity when putting forth our ideas and arguments? So, based on the inconceivability of completely objective TRUTH, I would respectfully disagree with your announced analysis of my previous analyses.

[D_Raay]

See Enigma's and Q's comments as well. I am not the only one who feels like ace doesn't live up to his end of the bragain in the marketplace of ideas-debate.

Now, I DO want to apologize for implying any drug usage on your part. That was unwarranted on my part and I completely regret an impugning of your character, D_Raay, in that vein. I was employing a rhetorical device, but it came off, when I re-read it, as unscrupulously derogatory. Again, I hope you accept my apology.

As for my "constant pirouette around the truth," well, you may have a point there as far as your INTERPRETATION of the truth. As far as objective truth, well, who among us can say that we have NO subjectivity when putting forth our ideas and arguments? So, based on the inconceivability of completely objective TRUTH, I would respectfully disagree with your announced analysis of my previous analyses.

Well, yes, I guess it would be impossible for us to know.
Apology accepted.

[Ace42X]

D_Raay, of course you would agree with ace. You both argue from an emotional standpoint, moving on to another point as soon as your tissue of arguments are shredded by the thresher of logic, context, and perspective.

You have yet to demonstrate a single logic argument yet, and have illustrated clearly that you don't even know how basic logical refutations work. You didn't even know what a straw-man fallacy meant for crying out loud. And you have the audacity to lecture on "the thresher of logic".

I know that as the only "lucid" republican here you are held up by some as an idol of the "reasonable right" but I don't buy it.

As much as you like to make proclamations about logic, context and perspective, you understand none of the above. Your constant self-contradictions should be a dead giveaway, and so I rest my case. Anyone can read your posts and see it for themselves.

[sam i am]

You have yet to demonstrate a single logic argument yet, and have illustrated clearly that you don't even know how basic logical refutations work. You didn't even know what a straw-man fallacy meant for crying out loud. And you have the audacity to lecture on "the thresher of logic".

I know that as the only "lucid" republican here you are held up by some as an idol of the "reasonable right" but I don't buy it.

As much as you like to make proclamations about logic, context and perspective, you understand none of the above. Your constant self-contradictions should be a dead giveaway, and so I rest my case. Anyone can read your posts and see it for themselves.

I'm sure anyone can read my posts and your posts and will agree with my statements above to D_Raay.

Neither one of us has ANY true corner on the market for "objective truth." And, that's the only point that is absolutely true.

Now, as for your personal attacks and affronts, as much fun as they are to parry and riposte, they are tiresome and boring. Your vain attempts to pigeonhole me and to somehow elevate yourself above all of us is without merit or foundation. Get down off your high-horse and join the debate in a spirited, contentious manner, but don't expect me to take your insults and then play nice with you. I gave you the opportunity, ace, to do so more than once and you CHOSE to continue with your insults. Let 'em go and we'll get along fine. Continue and I will continue to respond in kind. Deal?

[Ali]

The TS Elliot side?I love T.S. Eliot. So grim.

Preludes (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/eliot_preludes.html) is my favourite.

[Ali]

If you'd like to revoke our rappaproachment in favor of going off on each other again, please let me know. Elsewise, please limit your stridency to the topic at hand and refrain from personal insults and admonishments from on high.

Thank you. :)OK, but be warned that when you make remarks about "European Socialists" I am liable to get hopping mad and it's very, very difficult for me not to express my irritation.

You use the word Socialist like GWB says Terrorist or McCarthy said Communist. You demonise the word and the concept without ever having experienced it first hand (by your own admission, your only experience is a Capitalist one).

Socialism is not what you think, sam. European "Socialism", if that's what you want to call it, is nothing more than higher taxes and better public services. It is not Stalinism or whatever it is that you equate it with. There's economic competition here, be sure of that, but the state makes sure that things don't get out of hand. "Growth" is slow here, but Debt is also low, as is inflation and unemployment - despite immigration. Everybody gets an excellent education, regardless of their financial position, hospitals are free and very good, crime is low due to the large numbers of well-paid, well-trained, well-equipped police... you would be amazed, if you ever actually came to see it for yourself.

Of course, there are problems. No system is perfect, but it does work and people are as free to prosper here as they are in the US or UK, just far less likely to get themselves into the kind of personal debt which Americans and Brits seem to think is acceptable (and which is encouraged... to create the illusion of growth).

Um, what is rappaproachment? Did you mean rapprochement? Getting a bit late, was it?

Sure, we can get along and I won't sling any personal insults at you... as long as you don't make idiotic, sweeping statements like the one above. ;) K?

[sam i am]

OK, but be warned that when you make remarks about "European Socialists" I am liable to get hopping mad and it's very, very difficult for me not to express my irritation.

You use the word Socialist like GWB says Terrorist or McCarthy said Communist. You demonise the word and the concept without ever having experienced it first hand (by your own admission, your only experience is a Capitalist one).

Socialism is not what you think, sam. European "Socialism", if that's what you want to call it, is nothing more than higher taxes and better public services. It is not Stalinism or whatever it is that you equate it with. There's economic competition here, be sure of that, but the state makes sure that things don't get out of hand. "Growth" is slow here, but Debt is also low, as is inflation and unemployment - despite immigration. Everybody gets an excellent education, regardless of their financial position, hospitals are free and very good, crime is low due to the large numbers of well-paid, well-trained, well-equipped police... you would be amazed, if you ever actually came to see it for yourself.

Of course, there are problems. No system is perfect, but it does work and people are as free to prosper here as they are in the US or UK, just far less likely to get themselves into the kind of personal debt which Americans and Brits seem to think is acceptable (and which is encouraged... to create the illusion of growth).

Um, what is rappaproachment? Did you mean rapprochement? Getting a bit late, was it?

Sure, we can get along and I won't sling any personal insults at you... as long as you don't make idiotic, sweeping statements like the one above. ;) K?

K.

Lots I disagree with in your paragraph above, but I'll let it go for now.

I will only address that I was trying to specifically approach the problem of education in the "Socialist" western european countries. The belief there seems to be that the US is some rogue nation which completely ignores international protocols or the UN.

Sorry for the misspelling - I never took French :o

Also, I have been to Europe a few times in my lifetime (albeit back in the 80's) and was NOT impressed with the levels of security back then. Perhaps it's much better now. Can't wait until next year when I get to go to Italy again! (y)

[Ali]

I will only address that I was trying to specifically approach the problem of education in the "Socialist" western european countries. The belief there seems to be that the US is some rogue nation which completely ignores international protocols or the UN.So, you know how Europeans feel about certain beliefs held about them in the US.