Well, Bush signed it...

[makeda]

Originally posted by TheOriginalH
That was of course a very real threat - and one of the most heinous events in US history. But has precisely nothing to do with Iraq....

Actually, before it happened, it too was a "percieved threat". There was anectotal evidence that terrorists might try something like this, but people doubted whether or not they had the capability to pull it off and, in hindsight, didn't pay said threat as much attention as they should have.

Comes back to how you deal with a "percieved threat". Looks like we misjudged the last one. Do we roll the dice again?

[neil100]

Originally posted by makeda
I'm not saying that the US is right but at the same time, the fact people disagree with us, to me, doesn't necessarily indicate that we're wrong.

In theory perhaps, but the fact so many countries disagree, countries which have supported you in the past, should lead you to question whats different this time?

Also the amount of disagreement coming from within America should tell you somethings not right, the disagreement this time is coming from far more than just the usual peace protestors that are against every possible war.

Originally posted by makeda

So we wait for Saddam Hussein to nuke/gas Israel, Kuwait or Iraq before anyone acts against him, bacause until such time we don't have enough evidence? Please. My dog doesn't like my cat. Is my dog strong enough to kill my cat? I don't know. Do I let him give it his best shot before deciding whether or not to keep them separated? No.

So you see no problem with your government carrying out a pre-emptive strike killing innocent (and I don't mean saddam and his generals, I mean the innocent population of Iraq) people, because saddam may or may not have nuclear weapons and becuase someone as "trustworthy" as Mr Bush says Hussain may use these possible weapons.

That is how dictators and totalarian states behave, dragging people off the street, because thier views differ and claiming they are planning to commit some crime in the future. Perhaps you would welcome Bush giving your police force powers to arrest and charge people with crimes the police believe they may commit? No well I didn't think so after all that would actually affect you rather some people out in the middle east.

[makeda]

Originally posted by neil100
So you see no problem with your government carrying out a pre-emptive strike killing innocent (and I don't mean saddam and his generals, I mean the innocent population of Iraq) people

???

Neil, I continue to find your posts quite presumptuous. So much so that its rather pointless to respond becuase you already seem to know what I think, despite the fact that I've never said it. This could be a marketable skill...can you guess my weight?

[neil100]

Originally posted by makeda


???

Neil, I continue to find your posts quite presumptuous. So much so that its rather pointless to respond becuase you already seem to know what I think, despite the fact that I've never said it. This could be a marketable skill...can you guess my weight?

12 stone?

Well I did presume based on your previous posts that you are not some kind of Nazi, thus would not be in favour of Police being able to drag people off the street simply because of some crime they may possibly commit in the future, however if I have got this wrong and you are some kind of Nazi who would love the police to have those sort of powers then I apologise.

You find my posts presumptous, fine thats your opinion, I find yours lack logic due to the fact that are entirely based on the presumption of what Saddam Hussain may do rather than any hard facts, I guess that makes us both presumptous.

[makeda]

Originally posted by neil100


12 stone?

Well I did presume based on your previous posts that you are not some kind of Nazi, thus would not be in favour of Police being able to drag people off the street simply because of some crime they may possibly commit in the future, however if I have got this wrong and you are some kind of Nazi who would love the police to have those sort of powers then I apologise.

You find my posts presumptous, fine thats your opinion, I find yours lack logic due to the fact that are entirely based on the presumption of what Saddam Hussain may do rather than any hard facts, I guess that makes us both presumptous.

Thank you for making my point yet again. My comments were directed at your post, not at you. I quoted the comment I was taking issue with, yet you've ignored that and instead, chosen to personally attack me by making public insinuations that I'm a nazi. Nice work!

I've made no presumptions about what Saddam Hussein may or may not do, he's too unpredictable...thats what people find so dangerous.

[Hellbent]

Originally posted by makeda


Thank you for making my point yet again. My comments were directed at your post, not at you. I quoted the comment I was taking issue with, yet you've ignored that and instead, chosen to personally attack me by making public implications that I'm a nazi. Nice work!

I've made no presumptions about what Saddam Hussein may or may not do, he's too unpredictable...thats what people find so dangerous.

You get used to the Nazi thing makeda. It is very posh right now to declare your debate adversary a Nazi when the debate is not going in your favor. Get with the program or you may be compared to Hitler himself. I have grown accustomed to such colorful comparisons.

[Hierophant]

Please get back to the topic at hand and stop bickering about the presumptiousness (is that a word?) of each others posts. If you have nothing further to add to the conversation depart. Otherwise this will be closed.

[neil100]

Originally posted by makeda


Thank you for making my point yet again. My comments were directed at your post, not at you. I quoted the comment I was taking issue with, yet you've ignored that and instead, chosen to personally attack me by making public insinuations that I'm a nazi. Nice work!

I've made no presumptions about what Saddam Hussein may or may not do, he's too unpredictable...thats what people find so dangerous.

Firstly the claim that you were only directing your comments of being presumptous at my post and not me seems a bit illogical, surely there are some fairly obvious connections between a post and the person who made it, as someones post is what they are saying /thinking at that time, if a post is presumptous then surely by association the person who wrote that post is also being presumptous.

I apologise for ignoring your quote and refering to another one, I left my computer for a while came back and for some reason thought you refering to another part of my earlier post, I guess I shouldn't post things when I'm tired. As for the Nazi thing perhaps I shouldn't of mentioned that, although in my defence I did say from your posts I presumed you weren't one, there I go presumming again.

The comment I made, which you stated was presumpotous was :

"So you see no problem with your government carrying out a pre-emptive strike killing innocent (and I don't mean saddam and his generals, I mean the innocent population of Iraq) people, because saddam may or may not have nuclear weapons and becuase someone as "trustworthy" as Mr Bush says Hussain may use these possible weapons."

and the comment that I (or my post) was supposedly being presumptous about was:

"So we wait for Saddam Hussein to nuke/gas Israel, Kuwait or Iraq before anyone acts against him, bacause until such time we don't have enough evidence? Please. My dog doesn't like my cat. Is my dog strong enough to kill my cat? I don't know. Do I let him give it his best shot before deciding whether or not to keep them separated? No."

To me that says you don't think we should wait until Saddam Hussain nukes/gases Israel before any action is taken. Your cat / dog analogy seems to be saying you take action before your dog tries to harm your cat, therefore the same should be applied to Saddam Hussain, please note I am not being presumptous I merely trying to clarify what you said and your analogy, if I have misinterpreted your comment, please correct me.

If by the comments above you do indeed believe we should not wait around for Saddam Hussain to actually do something, but take action, then I think you are being presumptous about Saddam Hussain, you are presuming first of all that he actually has nukes and you are presuming he is likely to use them. If you are not presuming he is likely to use them only that he may use these weapons and that action should be taken anyrate, then that brings me back to my earlier point that you think it's okay for the US to kill innocents simply because Hussain may or may not do something.

Originally posted by HellBent
You get used to the Nazi thing makeda. It is very posh right now to declare your debate adversary a Nazi when the debate is not going in your favor. Get with the program or you may be compared to Hitler himself. I have grown accustomed to such colorful comparisons.

Firstly I didn't declare anyone a Nazi, I in fact stated that I presumed makeda wasn't one and only stated that I was apologetic if I had presumed wrong. As for the debate not going in my favour it was not I who deviated from the debate to comment upon someones post rather then the subject of the thread.

[neil100]

Sorry W.Luke I posted the above post a minute after you I won't mention the P word again.

[makeda]

Originally posted by neil100
To me that says you don't think we should wait until Saddam Hussain nukes/gases Israel before any action is taken. Your cat / dog analogy seems to be saying you take action before your dog tries to harm your cat, therefore the same should be applied to Saddam Hussain, please note I am not being presumptous I merely trying to clarify what you said and your analogy, if I have misinterpreted your comment, please correct me.

OK.

Back to my dog/cat analogy, I didn't say that the solution was to kill my dog, did I? I said the solution was to do something before something happened. In the case of my dog, its keeping him away from the cat. In the case of Saddam Hussein, I am uncertain what the solution is...but I know the solution is not to do nothing as many here seem to advocate.

If my dog doesn't think he'll get a correction if he disobeys me, why would he obey me? If the US weren't threatening force, would Iraq really take anything the UN says seriously? I doubt it. Does that mean the US is going to use force or that it wants to use force? No. This is the point I think people are missing.

Cheers.

[makeda]

Originally posted by neil100
Firstly the claim that you were only directing your comments of being presumptous at my post and not me seems a bit illogical, surely there are some fairly obvious connections between a post and the person who made it, as someones post is what they are saying /thinking at that time, if a post is presumptous then surely by association the person who wrote that post is also being presumptous.

Disagree with this too. Sometimes people post things on here just to take the p*ss out of other people. To get a reaction. Doesn't mean that what they're saying is actually how they feel, per se. So I think it is logical to make a distinction between one's posts and one's self.

[Hierophant]

Things can't be dropped when asked to.. Thread closed.