Poor old America!!

Poor old America

Maceface i wonder are you Prometheus in disguise just like johnjames is...... sad men ... pitty you cant fight your own battle without resorting to using more than one and in the case of Prometheus more than two user names......

Your points of view mean nothing on this website... like mine to i hear ya say, but at least i fight my own battle with one user name....

Re: Poor old America

Owensy just to let you know I don't involve myself with trolls like you. You have not put forward one reasonable argument on this or any other thread.

Piggy has challenged you on two occasions to back up your ridiculous views or retract them. On both occasions you have failed.

I don't know if you are a person of low intelligence or if you just get a kick out of throwing accusations around.

Either way I am getting sick of your foolish comments. If you cant bring anything worthwhile to the debate then Im not going to bother with you. I can only speak for myself but I imagine Im not the only one who is rapidly losing patience with your childish nonsense !!

Oh and by the way Owensy why don't you take a look at the Posting Guidelines for AAM. Especially no. (16)

www.askaboutmoney.com/posting.html

Double Standards

Hold on a minute, Prome, down off your high horse.

Piggy is for ever accusing opponents of multiple AAM personna. You might not the same as piggy - though being registered is no guarantee - you certainly have the exact same style - accuse the oppponent of trolling, being of low intelligence, not adding to the debate, and being a few of other people at the same time.

BTW I am not owensy. I do have different pseudonymns for AAM but I carefully tailor each pseudonymn to the subject matter. As YD/Yankee Doodle I contribute to the Iraq/US debates but I use no other front for that purpose.

Poor old America

As stated by Pom.. some of my points are foolish but they come from the heart.... i fight my own battles and dont need to make my self feel better by backing my self up under a different user name....

Well done YD.. and no you are not me...

Get a life boys and use one user name.

Re: Poor old America

I have one username. I am no one but MaceFace.
I have no idea who these other people are in real life, nor do I care.
Believe or not, its your choice, but hosestly, I don't really care.

Re: Poor old America

owensy,

You're quite entitled to your opinions and the whole idea of this forum is so that we can debate differing views. But if you make outrageous claims about other posters then you have to expect to be challenged. The 'pro-Saddam' comments being a case in point.

I've learnt from some bad experiences that just getting into an unconstructive slagging match with someone merely brings the debate down or closes the thread (ie a mod locks it). I'd suggest at this stage that if this bickering continues for much longer that that's exactly what will happen.

If you disagree with some of my points, or Macefaces, or Prometheus2's then disagree with them in a reasonable fashion. Challenge people on their opinions, but do it in such a way that gives them an opportunity to respond in a civil manner.

...

From reading this debate it seems to me that the posters who supported the war on Iraq see the matter as a simple questions:
A)which is better the US or Iraq?
B) which is better Iraq with Saddam or without?

For me the answers here are A) the US and B)without Saddam, and I think you will find that most anti-war and anti-Bush people would say the same.

However, none of these posters has defended the manner in which the US went about doing these things (i.e. unilaterally and based on dodgy evidence - see latest US Senate Intelligence Committee report).

The issue is not simply choosing the lesser of two evils. The fact that the US went about it as the lesser of two evils is the problem I have with them....they could have gone through the right channels (i.e. the UN) and resolved things in a manner that would have allowed them to be the good guys, and not just the lesser of two evils.

...

oh and by the way, what is trolling? this debate is being ruined by the bickering which should stop. One user one username please. Can a moderator please step in to verify the IP addresses or something to tell us if the posters above were duplicating usernames as the debate is suffering as a result of the allegations?

Can a moderator please step in to verify the IP addresses or something to tell us if the posters above were duplicating usernames

While it is not possible to say for certain that somebody is using more than one alias, as I have already mentioned Prometheus2, owensy and johnjames2010 are all posting from the same IP address. This could mean that they are the same person or else different individuals sharing a common proxy server etc. Posting under different aliases is not necessarily a problem as long as it is not abused to stoke up controversy or for other nefarious purposes.

And Irish foreign policy is?

Always amazed to read on this site the plethora of critiques concerning non-Irish foreign policy matters on an Irish financial forum.

How about a shocking change of course. Any of you prolific net-trawling America-bashers care to describe and critique, if possible, any aspects of Irish foreign policy? I'd be interested in knowing just what it is, for starters.

And for the record, I haven't posted for a good while and I always use the same name.

Legality of Iraqi invasion

The anti-brigade often refer to the illegality of the Iraq invasion (not so piggy to be fair, he couldn't give a damn if it was legal or not).

In March 2003 there was some doubt that the invasion would be internationally legal - a cause of some concern to law abiding nations like the US/UK. After months of painstaking legalising through the UN the US/UK were on the verge of getting a certain UN clearance for the invasion. Then, oops, what do you know, France was going to veto it. It is an unfortunate feature of the international world order that a country with 1% of its inhabitants can veto the majority. In these circumstances the US/UK with many, many allies embarked on the invasion with an uncertainty hanging over its theoretical legality.

That uncertainty was removed when the British attorney general after careful consideration reported to the British Dail that in his opinion it was legal. I suggest that the British DA is far more qualified to pronounce on these matters than the contributors to AAM.

Trolling

Ohpinchy asks

oh and by the way, what is trolling?

Click to expand...

Experts are of course divided on the matter. Some or all, but necessarily all, of the following symptoms can be detected in a chronic troll:

1) Stalking of other contributors on sites like AAM.

2) Making heavily sarcastic arguments simply to rile opponents.

3) Rambling on with meaningless and unfunny posts to attempt to close down a topic.

4) Dual or even multiple personna on sites like AAM.

It is this last which has caused some observers to speculate that there is a connection between trolling and scychzophrenia.

Studies have shown that trolling knows no barriers between class, race or creed. However, there is very strong evidence to suggest that women are less likely to troll than men.

It is impossible to tell at this stage whether there is a genetic disposition to troll as websites have only been available for a few years though some suggest that satiricists such as Jonathan Swift were secret trolls.

Thankfully these days the stigma of trolling has largely disappeared and people are more inclined to come out and admit their disease, for disease it is. I personally have been known to troll, who in this AAM community can honestly say they haven't?

Re: Legality of Iraqi invasion

The anti-brigade often refer to the illegality of the Iraq invasion (not so piggy to be fair, he couldn't give a damn if it was legal or not).

I think you'll find that I've mentioned the illegality of this war numerous times.

[broken link removed]
The "law" in this case comes primarily from the United Nations Charter, which the United States has traditionally asserted binds this country. Under the Charter, member countries are authorized to use force in only two circumstances: Chapter VII, Article 42 authorizes the Security Council to "take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." And Article 51 authorizes the use of armed force in self defense. Those are the only two grounds for use of military force under international law.

See also...
www.cesr.org/iraq/docs/tearinguptherules.pdf

[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm


That uncertainty was removed when the British attorney general after careful consideration reported to the British Dail that in his opinion it was legal.

I think you'll find that it wasn't as a lot of International lawyers have spoken out since that he got it wrong, or was pushed into making that decision. It's very much a divisive subject and has seen much debate in the media since the start of the war.

I suggest that the British DA is far more qualified to pronounce on these matters than the contributors to AAM.
Which is why I refer you to the few articles that I picked out above.

Legality

Piggy,

kindly tell us how you would propose to "legally" remove a serial killer who also happens to be in charge of a nation? And while you're at it, what legalities, if any, were observed in the removal of Hitler? Hint: The UN and World Court didn't exist until after WW2.

Re: Legality

what legalities, if any, were observed in the removal of Hitler?

I don't see the point in this question as the UN didn't exist at this time. However, largely because of people like Hitler Article 51 of the UN charter "authorizes the use of armed force in self defense" which if it had previously existed would have clearly given the International right to stop Hitler. No one 'removed' him by the way. He shot himself.

According to international law and the UN charter, this war was arguably (and I believe) illegal.

Britain took their country to war on the basis of WMD. Now they know that intelligence was wrong. Whether the intelligence for the war was there before anyone thought about it or whether the war was built around whatever evidence they could patch together to justify it is something we will never conclusively know...however there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the US and UK were just looking for anything they could lay their hands on to justify the war to their people and to the UN.
Farcically, neither leader will fall on his sword over what is possibly the biggest blunder in modern history.

.

kindly tell us how you would propose to "legally" remove a serial killer who also happens to be in charge of a nation?

Click to expand...

Well we had our chance when bush visited Ireland last month. (Just get the gardai to arrest him - there were enough of them!)

Legalities

So Piggy, you would have supported the killing of Hitler and/or his SS stormtroopers who invaded and brutalised much of Europe despite the absence of universally recognised laws that were not codified until after WW2?

Just what was your position on Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and his 8 year war on Iran? What laws were applied then that prevented ? Tens of thousands died at his hands but can you recall much international outrage and protests in the streets? I don't.

Re: Legalities

despite the absence of universally recognised laws

I don't really see where you're going with this argument? So what? We didn't have universally recognised laws back in the 15th century either!!

Just what was your position on Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and his 8 year war on Iran?

I was about 15 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. I don't think I had any thoughts on the subject.
Let's not bring up Iran shall we.

Tens of thousands died at his hands but can you recall much international outrage and protests in the streets? I don't.

Possibly because the UN was doing something about it, thus negating the need for people in the Western world to campaign about it.

Laws

The point, Piggy, is what would YOU suggest be done to prevent or stop a dreadful atrocity like the one that took place for 8 years between Iran and Iraq. Would you accept that whatever the UN may have done, 8 years is a bit long to come up with a solution?


Please read my post on Sudan and tell us what you'd do right now to help those suffering souls! The UN is dithering as men, women and children are being raped and butchered. I'm trying to understand the mindset that would demand "laws" be examined before moving a finger to help.

At 15 you didn't have any thoughts on the brutal invasion of Kuwait? I see.