Lol! I actually plan on responding to your excellent, albeit misguided ( ) post, but I don't respond to serious discussions like that when I'm feeling flippant and more than a little intoxicated...Tell my roomies to stop making mixing drinks of you want a higher level of response. But seriously, I will respond later...your post deserves no less, as does glynch's and a few others... BTW...*hic*...Have you read The Wars of Louis XIV, by John A. Lynn, or any of Furet's works on pre and post revolutionary France? Just curious.
Oh, the race card is played. How boring. Hmmm. I have stated on this BBS that I am against the death penalty, I support medical mar1juana, and I think that the Bush administration's support for tort reform is a sellout to big business. Of course, maybe you don't care about reality. Oh, you support the War against Iraq. Nice job of getting off the fence. No, reality is reality. The UN sactioned this war, and we executed their mandate. No, I didn't say that. You really are an illogical mess tonight. Next time you want to debate, bring some logic and factual information with you, ok?
Geez...some of us poor schlubs have to mix our own. Stop taunting us with your unattainable visions of the good life.
Sober up Derek, and address the Iraqi documents proving the link with Al Queda and the fact that UN Security Council members were spying for Iraq. It seems to me that the Sun King could not possibly be more irrelevant.
Or my unattainable grammatical improvisations...lol...'making mixing drinks' no less...I honestly didn't think I was that drunk. Oh, BTW, Mrs. JB, can I assume from the hot pic you posted that you have moved on, and no longer require any samples from my portfolio, as the Sun King now shineth where once I might have a little glowed?
Or my unattainable grammatical improvisations...lol...'making mixing drinks' no less...I honestly didn't think I was that drunk. Sadly, the fact that I didn't notice the error until you pointed it out probably doesn't say much for my current state of sobriety either. Oh, BTW, Mrs. JB, can I assume from the hot pic you posted that you have moved on, and no longer require any samples from my portfolio, as the Sun King now shineth where once I might have a little glowed? Hey, if you look better in tights and heels than old Louis, then post them pics!
Race card. No. I've had debates about sterotypes with Chinese members. Some will remember. Very heated. So, the mere fact that I mention "civil rights" is not a declaration that I'm calling you a "racists." I'm trying to get you to state your views on "civil rights." Those are liberal views, remeber? But you wont. Now, could you please erase the notion of a "fence." There is no such thing. Some times there are issues that are not cut and dry. What do you do with those type issue? For example can you ban abortions in the USA? Is it reasonably possible? In a democracy? Yes, or No? (cut and dry). Glad to hear the ideas of about big business. I never read any of our post exept here. "Sanctions" or "no sanction." It still does not change the worlds perception. You'll have to deal with that sooner or later. Also, do you really believe it was "their(UK)" mandate? Really? I don't think you understand the political and economic pressure the USA can exude.
No, reality is reality. The UN sactioned this war, and we executed their mandate Heath. Sorry like most of the world I don't think so. Neither did the majority of the Security Council. That's why Bush despite his cowboyish "I want everyone to put their cards on the table" refused to have a Security Council vote taken as he wouldn't get approval. You know how a vote of the General Assembly would have turned out. Kofi Annan the General Secretary said it didn't have approval. . I realize that Bush tried to argue UN authority for his war, but it was weak. Heath, be honest. Just admit it was not approved by the UN. Why would you even care? Quit acting like a politician. Your main virtue on this board is type of honesty and consistency.
David, I don't get your debate style. My views about Civil Rights are completely irrelevant to this discussion, and your request that I state those same views is just a cheap diversion. Anyway, I don't agree that the Civil Rights cause can be necessarily called "Liberal" using the contemporary meaning of the word. Let's refer to one of MacBeth's passages in the original post of this thread because I completely agree with MacBeth's paragraph, and I find it to to be very well written. I see the United States as The Great Experiment. In a world which was ruled by the principle of Might is Right, constantly witness and/or party to ongoing struggles between imperialist superpowers, or subject to their whims if you happened to not be among them, the Founding Fathers of the United States did something incredible by historical standards; they fought for an ideal...and won. More incredibly still, when that battle had been won, rather than turning into what they had rebelled against, as happened in virtually every other revolution on history, the new found Unisted States of America stopped fighting and set about trying to construct a nation built on the principles for which they had fought, principles mostly derived from Voltaire, and illustrated by Jefferson and Payne; freedom, self-determination, equality, and the principle that might does not equal right. Our Founding Fathers, best described as "Classical Liberals" (closest to the Libertarians of today) did create an ideal that our society has yet to attain. My opinions concerning Civil Rights conform to that ideal. I also think that liberating Iraq from a genocidal dictator is consistant with the same ideals expressed by our founding fathers, especially when that same dictator has American blood on his hands.
John....if and when any of your posts end up being true, and in any way refute my points, I promise I will address them. But in the meanwhile, if you actually expect me to debate every single claim you make, and argue about it's connection/refutation of my arguments, I simply haven't the endurance. I have repeatedly said that i thought it highly likely that SH had some WMD, and whether or not they turn up after a month or so does has little to do with my objections. I have only gotten engaged in the whole hunt for the WMD discussions because of the ridicluous nature of some of the claims, and the shifting arguments for justification that have cropped up in their absence. I will, with a sigh, tell you that your arguments here have no bearing on my post, let alone refute them. You conclude that a report, or even a fact if it turns out to be true, that France was leaking something somehow means that the US wasn't acting in defiance of global will...I can't even call that argument apples and oranges...more like apples and a jazz trio. And taking an unverified report which claims that there may have been interest in setting up a meeting which may or may not have ever taken place, let alone lead to anything even approaching a conspiracy to commit terrorism and calling it proof is exactly the kind of move which has people thinking what they do about you. Add an insult to it, and you'd have a johnheath red letter day.
Glynch, 1441 was authored by our side, and the whole world knew the meaning of "dire consequences" if Iraq did not comply. France, Russia, and Germany turned their backs on the UN when they walked away from their affirmative votes endorsing 1441. I confidently stand by my statement.
LOL, you keep moving the finish line further and further away. See you there......eventually even you will have to admit what is apparent to those seeking the truth.
Again as Macbeth says you assume all sorts of things to be facts. 1) Note the date 9/25/01. (Frenh talking to Iraqis,) There was no reason to assume Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Nothing inherently wrong with the French talking about conversations of Chirac and Bush. Iraq was a sovereign nation and France had relations with them. I know you think that this was awful, and along with Bush supported invading IRAQ as they had no right to sovereignity as they were evil, but that is your opinion. 2) You assume that some sort of breach of security was involved, maybe yes maybe no. Hate the French beause they didn't support your war, but quit making up other things to hate them for.
Heh heh... I brought up the civil rights issue, because it gives me insight to your point of view. And it also give me an indication if you will be able to see from different perspective. If you were completely against civil rights (minorities) then you surely wont be able to have a open-minded debate about war with Iraq (A "bomb the rag heads" dumb hick). The term "Liberal" may not be universally married to "civil rights," but KKK groups (and some conservative capitalist) would disagree with you.
