Originally posted by eljefejesus Oh please, don't tell me because the UN was involved, that you give more credit to the UN than to NATO which supplied the majority of arms and was quicker moving.
Bush Senior was wise enough to gather a coalition to stop a war of agression. He could have done it with NATO forces, but he also wisely made it a worldwide cooperation in official name... ...[text shortened]... t primarily and principally NATO millitary forces involved and quit wasting time with nonsense.
So you are saying that the 1991 Gulf War was a NATO operation?
Originally posted by FMF So you are saying that the 1991 Gulf War was a NATO operation?
Here we go again...
show me what your point is.
Mine correctly inferred that there were primarily and principally NATO millitary forces involved ... if you have no point to counter with, quit wasting time with nonsense.
Originally posted by eljefejesus There should definitely be a peace block in Latin America that can move faster than the United Nations to stop wars of agression, like NATO kicking Sadam Hussein out of Iraq.
You attempt to draw a clumsy analogy between Latin America and military events in the Middle East and all you succeed in doing is revealling your patchy grasp of what NATO is, how it operates, who invaded whom, for what exact purpose, and seemingly a certain degree of confusion about geography - Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan. If you can't get the details of your analogy right, why should we take anything you say about Latin America seriously?
Originally posted by eljefejesus Here we go again...
show me what your point is.
Mine correctly inferred that there were primarily and principally NATO millitary forces involved ... if you have no point to counter with, quit wasting time with nonsense.
Your analysis on how "NATO [kicked] Sadam Hussein out of Iraq" is surely timewasting nonsense?
And besides, are you proposing that some Latin American NATO equivalent should kick Chavez out of Venuzuela?
Originally posted by FMF You attempt to draw a clumsy analogy between Latin America and military events in the Middle East and all you succeed in doing is revealling your patchy grasp of what NATO is, how it operates, who invaded whom, for what exact purpose, and seemingly a certain degree of confusion about geography - Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan. If you can't get the details of your analogy right, why should we take anything you say about Latin America seriously?
LOL, yeah right. You always repeat those same tired lines to everyone in here no matter what the topic is.
You say: you said (eword opponent argument and twist it around here) which shows that (throw in a critical adjective like clumsy) which is (use another recycles phrase like failed attempt) ...
Originally posted by FMF Your analysis on how "NATO [kicked] Sadam Hussein out of Iraq" is surely timewasting nonsense?
And besides, are you proposing that some Latin American NATO equivalent should kick Chavez out of Venuzuela?
Actually, I envision a peacekeeping force that makes Chavez think twice before continuing with additional saber rattling against Columbia (which he's made such a habit of doing).
Are you against keeping a peace and preventing wars of agression in Latin America today? I can rarely tell how consistent you will be depending on your mood.
Originally posted by eljefejesus LOL, yeah right. You always repeat those same tired lines to everyone in here no matter what the topic is.
You say: you said (eword opponent argument and twist it around here) which shows that (throw in a critical adjective like clumsy) which is (use another recycles phrase like failed attempt) ...
You seem to have a restricted understanding of what NATO is.
Originally posted by eljefejesus You say: you said (eword opponent argument and twist it around here) which shows that (throw in a critical adjective like clumsy) which is (use another recycles phrase like failed attempt) ...
OK. Let me try your template:
You say: you said (eword opponent argument and twist it around here: There should definitely be a peace block in Latin America that can move faster than the United Nations to stop wars of agression, like NATO kicking Sadam Hussein out of Iraq.) which shows that (throw in a critical adjective like clumsy) which is (use another recycles phrase like failed attempt: is a clumsy attempted analogy between Latin America and military events in the Middle East) [/b]) which shows that (throw in a critical adjective like clumsy: you may not have a clear understanding of what NATO is and what operations it has mounted) which is (use another recycles phrase like failed attempt: in addition to your confusion about geography - Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan - and a failed attempt to show how allegedly "invading Iraq" has any parallel to Latin America)
It works.
What is your response to the points I have made?
confusion about geography - Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan
Originally posted by FMF OK. Let me try your template:
You say: you said (eword opponent argument and twist it around here: [b]There should definitely be a peace block in Latin America that can move faster than the United Nations to stop wars of agression, like NATO kicking Sadam Hussein out of Iraq.) which shows that (throw in a critical adjective like clumsy) which is (use an ...[text shortened]... r response to the points I have made?
confusion about geography - Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan[/b]
Thanks for demonstrating my point, which is that the template is idiot proof... even FMF can almost use it! I say almost because if you make it idiot proof, the world will make a better idiot. Speaking of FMF...
here is one of may google image results for a map of the middle east:
Now that we've resolved your sad attempt to raise a false attack to distract from the debate, and we can all be quite sure of where Iraq and Afghanistan are on the map... can we move on to the actual debate?
Originally posted by eljefejesus You did not support your statement, what are you saying about NATO that contradicts what I said?
I am saying NATO did not invade Iraq in 1991 and did not "kick Saddam out". Nor did NATO invade Iraq in 2003. You are perhaps getting Iraq confused with Afghanistan. So what I am saying is that your reference to NATO to try to explain something or other about what you believe about Latin America has fallen flat on its face because it is riddled with inaccuracies and misconceptions. That's all.
Originally posted by eljefejesus Actually, I envision a peacekeeping force that makes Chavez think twice before continuing with additional saber rattling against Columbia (which he's made such a habit of doing).
Are you claiming that the existence of NATO deterred Saddam Hussein? You are not usually as tangled up in knots as this when you contribute to debates.
Originally posted by FMF I am saying NATO did not invade Iraq in 1991 and did not "kick Saddam out". Nor did NATO invade Iraq in 2003. You are perhaps getting Iraq confused with Afghanistan. So what I am saying is that your reference to NATO to try to explain something or other about what you believe about Latin America has fallen flat on its face because it is riddled with inaccuracies and misconceptions. That's all.
Oh brother, please spare us with the misquotes and distortions followed by more name-calling and critical adjectives... we've seen this movie before, and it ends with FMF going on and on for post after post.
Your criticism was wrong.
I did not say that NATO invaded Iraq in 2003, and you are not stupid enough to think that I said that after going back and reading all my posts.
NATO countries did the heavy fighting against Iraq in 1991 to kick Sadam's forces out of Kuwait and you deny it.
US bases in Colombia, and how it has nothing to do with Lula (so he should stay out of it)
26 Aug '09 03:08
Back to Top