WRONG!!!! Each of the 12 (hell, or was it 14) UN resolutions that Saddam violated and peaceniks LOVE to ignore REQUIRED him to prove to the UN that ALL his WMDs were destroyed. NONE of the UN mandates, resolutions, etc, etc, signed on by, among others, Mr. Chirac, required UN, US, or any other acronym to find diddly squat. ALL that was required was lack of proof from Mr. Hussein that he , in fact, destroyed the proscribed (to quote that Ass Blix) weapons. Only somehow all of the Bush-haters managed to twist it into this idiotic notion, that it was US that had to find and prove anything. But, like with quoting editorials claiming that Bush said "imminent" instead of "becoming imminent", the truth does not seem to be all that important to these people - gee, what a surprise that they would defend Saddam.

__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law
1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car"
1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home)
1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!"

Yeah- what pj67coll said!! sadly, even the eywitness account will not change so called minds of the Bush-haters...

__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law
1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car"
1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home)
1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!"

Even if Iraq were found to be in breach of the 12 or 14 silly U.N. resolutions, the question still remains, does the threat rise to an 'imminent' level remotely dire enough to require an invasion and occupation of another nation? Given what we 'knew' then, and what we absolutely KNOW now, I think not!

My question to you Piotr is, are you capable of challenging your ideological opponents without assailing their character on a personal level? By all means, attack my ideas, or my arguments, but remember I'm not your enemy. I don't hate Bush, nor am I a defender of Saddam or his myriad of crimes. I just believe that this case does not in the least bit meet a proper justification for attacking, invading, and occupying a sovereign nation.

Reasonable people can disagree about this point, but it's not a sign of a weakness of character that millions of folks worldwide happen to agree with me.

Why don't we just surrender to the bad guys so that we can all go back and work/fix our MB's. I'm still waiting for something to break on my C280 after 200K miles. I have never had it serviced other than oil/filters and tires of course. Where did people get the idea that a maintenance free car like MB needs to be serviced/repaired all the time?

"are you capable of challenging your ideological opponents without assailing their character on a personal level? By all means, attack my ideas, or my arguments, but remember I'm not your enemy. " - Zeitgeist

Thank you for addressing one of the most annoying habits of many of the people on this board (although IMO Piotr is probably the biggest offender).

Couple of things:
-Who cares where Vronsky is from, he provides an interesting and opposing viewpoint which incites some intelligent and some stupid debate
-Disagreeing with Bush is not supporting the terrorists or loving Saddam
-Its awfully difficult to cite UN resolutions as justification for invading Iraq, when the invasion is in violation of the UN.
-Great for you Peter! I've had to repair my MB several times so quit rubbing my nose in it.

Peter that is very nice, I am glad you are so proud of your low maintance Benz, and I hope you keep haveing good luck with it. But you realy don't need to end every post with you never open the hood, etc. If you want to talk about it start a thread, we would be very interested in hearing how you did it. I am not attacking you, but every one of your posts I read says the same thing. Now back to the show! Bush Rules! Go US troops!

hatterasguy: Is it safe to say i do open the "hood" about 4to 6 times a day and hardly ever open the boot since there is no reason to check the engine that I know of. Since these cars operate so well, I think too many people are trying to maintain things that requeir no adjustment or replacements whatsoever. It doe'nt rain here enough for car grooming. But thanks for your notice anyway. Pete







is it safe to say thar

I totally agree with that.

Kind regards
Eberhard

OK, please cite (except a couple responses to posts that really got to me, and I actually already apologised for these) where I personally attacked anyone. I may have a negative opinion of a group of people, but I'm trying VERY HARD not to be mean and pointlessly attack individuals.

If you support my enemies, unfortunately, you DO come close to being my enemy. I agree that people have right to different opinion (and I DO disagree with the administration on this- any protest in this country about ANYTHING must be allowed at any time). However, if somebody blindly recites party line completely ignoring or changing the facts, well, sorry, that tends to get me a little annoyed.

Some of my opponents went somewhat beyond "providing usefull insight." They maliciously attacked this country and people opposed to their viewpoints using EXACTLY the tactics you accuse me of using. And, I could send you a ton of e-mails in which some members of this site call me all kinds of names (completely unrelated to the discussion). So, please, prove your point.

__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law
1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car"
1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home)
1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!"

Piotr, I'm not interested in playing 'gotcha' with you, or in proving my point at your expense. All I'm suggesting is that one of the principled groundrules for a thoughtful political debate should be to keep the discourse focused on ideas and arguments, rather than on 'slash and burn' character assassinations.
We're all guilty of this from time to time--yes, even you my friend. This is all the more reason to mount a well reasoned and rational attack on that party line, revealing the weaknesses and inconsistencies therein. Just keep the focus on the party and the line, not the party member.

Trust me, I'm just as passionate about politics as you or the next guy. But I don't have the luxury of a presidential administration or political party that I can get behind and defend, or use as a weapon. All I've got are ideas and values, which can be excellent tools, but the whole excercise becomes useless and futile when the discussion turns venal and personal.

Amen to that.

The personal stuff is seriously misguided. It weakens the substance of an argument.

And we're supposed to enjoy this process, or at least learn a wee bit from it, which isn't easy if you are insulted for not liking this or that politician.

Hell, I don't like any of them, and you can kiss my a$$ if you disagree!

But even you admit to being guilty of it. As stated in the post it was in my opinion! Not going to go through posts to back it up.. not worth my time. Considering what you guys know of me, take it for what it is worth (probably not much - although I'd like to think of my opinions as priceless; don't we all?).

Please also take note that I said it was a habit of MANY people on this board so it was not relegated to only you.

Now that that's over with.......

Those damn dirty, hippy, saddam-loving, commie-pinko terrorists are trying to ........ Just kidding. I just wanted to say that.

"If you support my enemies, unfortunately, you DO come close to being my enemy. " - Piotr

That's a fair statement, but let's really consider here.... Do you really believe that anyone on this board is a supporter of terrorism?
Is anyone here really a Saddam lover?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say NO. As is said disagreeing with the conservative majority on the board does not necessarily make you a terrorist or terrorist supporter.

Now if you include France as your enemy, then Vronsky might qualify j/k.

By the way, good article on the irrelevant French.

Obviously my attempt to make the dialog in this thread more measured and meaningful has backfired... Thanks Spock!

I'll just go back to reading and not posting (which I'm sure will be to your liking... that way you won't have to write anymore ridiculous posts).

au revoir

Yes some did, go back to around Oct. 2001 and read a thread titles something "Did the U.S. bring this on themselves?" referring to 9-11.

You guys crack me up...

Just because the rest of the world isn't blinded by your country's greed doesn't mean they support Terrorism...

What is Terrorism...And how does the US get away with it? thats the question that should asked...