A Muslim Europe is coming?

[ncurd]

I think composition of how it's formed can certainly be looked at but 4 of the 5 biggest military powers in the world (when you factor in capability, hardware etc. rather than just raw numbers) are represented by the permanent members with France at 6. I certainly think they need some form of a seat at the table even if it's no longer a permanent status. Just for the simple factor that any large conflict if likely to involve one or more of them.

15 elected members? Probably not the best idea.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Sorry your really telling me ethnic cleansing is okay? Or gassing your own people? If you don't think Hussein was a terrible person then I don't what to think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

No, i am not saying that. Kindly stop putting words in my mouth and stop dodging the questions: who gets to decide what governments are worthy of being removed?

Funny the one making false claims about Sadam now comes up with sources. And wikipedia ones!

Okay first part is erroneous from what I've read previously reports at the time suggested this was the case however it now seams that this wasn't true. This is the problem with news sometimes, you read one thing and assume this is reported correctly but when it's later proven to be wrong you don't always see that part so continue to believe the falsehood no matter how much it was believed to be correct at the time.

You make it sound as if everyone agreed with the fact that it was SH claimed he had WMD. That is false. He never did, and there is not a shred of evidence of that.

When you make a claim, someone challenges it and you can't back it up, blaming "the media and the way they report it" ain't the most elegant excuse.

He should of never been allowed to stay in power after the first gulf war anyway.

Have you ever heard about the "what if the other party followed the same logic" approach? Elementary empathy.
You should try it. Unless you are one of those who believe in "English exceptionalism", that simple exercise should demolish several of your theories.

 

[ncurd]

No, i am not saying that. Kindly stop putting words in my mouth and stop dodging the questions: who gets to decide what governments are worthy of being removed?

Funny the one making false claims about Sadam now comes up with sources. And wikipedia ones!


You make it sound as if everyone agreed with the fact that it was SH claimed he had WMD. That is false. He never did, and there is not a shred of evidence of that.

When you make a claim, someone challenges it and you can't back it up, blaming "the media and the way they report it" ain't the most elegant excuse.


Have you ever heard about the "what if the other party followed the same logic" approach? Elementary empathy.
You should try it. Unless you are one of those who believe in "English exceptionalism", that simple exercise should demolish several of your theories.

hmmm head bitten off for admitting I was wrong about something and explaining why I was, I would like to say it was a first but sadly it's not gotta love the internet.

I use wikipedia for a source because articles there are massively referenced the one article I linked has 31 references, a further reading external link and a further 8 external links. If you don't think that qualifies as a decent source of information then frankly I have no idea what you want for backing something up. The concept Wikipedia can be edited by anyone to debunk it has always been false because the whole point is it references a ton of further information making it actually highly accurate.

I did not put words in your mouth but you said who gets to decide? I merely put forward that in this current discussion that it doesn't really matter it's a pretty open and shut case.



The last part make little sense I've googled the phrase and can't find it anywhere so I've no actual idea what your on about.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Boris Johnson at times can say the most perfect thing.

 

[ncurd]

Boris Johnson at times can say the most perfect thing.

I'd laugh about Trump if lots of people were not actually considering voting for him.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I did not put words in your mouth

Then please tell me, exactly, when did i write or imply anything remotely close to this implicit question you directed at me:

Sorry your really telling me ethnic cleansing is okay?

be specific.

I merely put forward that in this current discussion that it doesn't really matter it's a pretty open and shut case.

You didn't merely put forward anything. You said

I have no problem with taking out people regimes that brutalise other human being within their borders.

I do, as i cannot figure out who would be the one(s) deciding who was worthy of being taking out, and how would that process work.
Since you clearly stated that "you had no problem" it would follow that you know the answers to the who/how questions i made.
I am still waiting for you to stop dodging questions.

 

[ncurd]

I do, as i cannot figure out who would be the one(s) deciding who was worthy of being taking out, and how would that process work.
Since you clearly stated that "you had no problem" it would follow that you know the answers to the who/how questions i made.
I am still waiting for you to stop dodging questions.

maybe you should read the other posts in this thread that you skipped out where I talk about the UN Security Council to YoungScud? just a suggestion.

- - - Updated - - -

Then please tell me, exactly, when did i write or imply anything remotely close to this implicit question you directed at me:

Sorry your really telling me ethnic cleansing is okay?

be specific.

You're misinterpreting my post, the point was it's an absurd question in regards to Saddam Hussein whom we are discussing as a brutal regime and others like it.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

maybe you should read the other posts in this thread that you skipped out where I talk about the UN Security Council to YoungScud? just a suggestion.

Unbelievable.

First, you are ok with the US removing SH from power.
Second, when questioned about the method, you respond with the UNSC
Third, it's as if you are completely unaware that the UN did not gave the US authorization to invade.

Summing it up, the mechanism you propose is the one that said NO to the action you previously approved.
What you just said should be in the dictionary besides the definition of "Contradiction".

Should i expect another "it was not my fault, it was the media" response?

You're misinterpreting my post, the point was it's an absurd question in regards to Saddam Hussein whom we are discussing as a brutal regime and others like it.

Or maybe you're not as eloquent as you think you are. It's not always other people's fault.
Maybe you missed the memo, but you do not have the monopoly on defining what/who is brutal.

 

[ncurd]

Unbelievable.

First, you are ok with the US removing SH from power.
Second, when questioned about the method, you respond with the UNSC
Third, it's as if you are completely unaware that the UN did not gave the US authorization to invade.

Summing it up, the mechanism you propose is the one that said NO to the action you previously approved.
What you just said should be in the dictionary besides the definition of "Contradiction".

Should i expect another "it was not my fault, it was the media" response?


Or maybe you're not as eloquent as you think you are. It's not always other people's fault.
Maybe you missed the memo, but you do not have the monopoly on defining what/who is brutal.

No its not a contradiction and if you read instead of deciding to attack me you'd know that. What I said was the UN needs to start calling human rights violations out for what they are and stop being the gutless organisation it is currently. Part that is removing the power of veto from the permenant members which render any vote one them disagrees with a waste of time, except I'm repeating myself here because you don't want to actually counter any argument with your own and just moan I'm making arbitrary accusations.

Okay in your opinion was Sadam Hussein a brutal dictator of Iraq? I may not be have monopoly but any idiot can tell he was and very few if any human rights organisations thought his regime was one of sunshine and rainbows.

Sure there are gong to be cases where a country committing human rights violations is going t be a very grey area but guess what a lot these contries are nowhere the grey area.


For the record yes it's quite right the UN never authorised the US to invade Iraq however

A) France said it would veto any motion rendering the entire process useless.
B) None of this was over the human rights violations of Sadam Hussein and was never mooted as possible reason at the time as I said several posts back.


All I want is the UN is to start doing its job and actually stop people from murdering thier own citizens which they have squarely failed to do since its inception.

- - - Updated - - -

And no I dont think I'm an eloquent writer because I'm not never have been and probably never will be. I just put things down how I think it which is why I'm willing to explain myself.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

From the producers of "You're misinterpreting my post" and the award winning "the media's way of reporting is the problem", we now bring to you "It's not a contradiction", soon in theatres near you. Rated pg 13.

 

[ncurd]

From the producers of "You're misinterpreting my post" and the award winning "the media's way of reporting is the problem", we now bring to you "It's not a contradiction", soon in theatres near you. Rated pg 13.

aka I have no answer to anything you actually said in your post so I'll make a joke instead.

Summing it up, the mechanism you propose is the one that said NO to the action you previously approved.

If I had said this it would be a contradiction however what I've said is the method I propose doesn't actually exist. In addition no vote was ever had so it never said NO and the proposed vote was not about Human Rights violations but alleged ownership of WMD's.

But sure keep saying I contradicted myself eventually it might even be true.

Or better yet actually have a discussion on what I said instead of just reading one sentence and not reading the rest. But you couldn't be bothered to read the other posts and jumped straight in there no need got your stick now. Read the headline don't bother to read to the rest.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

You're evidently trolling in a desperate attempt to have the last word. Have it. You're fragile ego clearly needs it.
I'm out.

 

[ncurd]

You're evidently trolling in a desperate attempt to have the last word. Have it. You're fragile ego clearly needs it.
I'm out.

Ah the trolling word still no actual point made by you on the matter at hand. I wonder who's the actual troll here?

- - - Updated - - -

Just for record me as a troll has,

defended everything I said (people may disagree if I'm right or wrong that's the point of a discussion)
given detailed responses to questions asked
admitted when I got history of events wrong and explained the reasons why

CDS has just attacked me and not actually discussed anything at hand and has repeatedly skipped over any content to generate attacks instead.

 

[McTallshort]

You're evidently trolling in a desperate attempt to have the last word. Have it. You're fragile ego clearly needs it.
I'm out.

How is he trolling?

 

[sixesauldman]

How is he trolling?

Trolling probably not , entrenched, myopic and acutely delusional yes.

 

[ncurd]

Trolling probably not , entrenched, myopic and acutely delusional yes.

entrenched probably but nobody else is putting forward anything else.

The other two care to explain? Seriously I'm all up for people disagreeing with me no issue with that but people are attacking me and my views without putting forward their own.

Me and Tallshort disagree a lot on politics but at least he's willing to engage in the conversation for that I at least respect him.