Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
Guys....I have news that may shock you!.....Official: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq!!!! *GASP*
- Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
<div style='font: 12pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Nothing, no reason, same thing. Look, (a) you're not psychic and only time can tell what the real outcome in Iraq will be. & (b) The war wasn't fought to remove an evil dictator, it was fought on the false charges that he had WMD and he posed a real and iminent threat to the US, neither are true.</div>
<div style='font: 12pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Kerry and Edwards voted yes with the expectation that George Bush would exhaust the full possibilites of peacefully resolving this conflict through the UN... and then if in the end it turned out that Saddam was a real threat and millitary action WAS required, that Bush would, like his father, form a sizable coalition to invade. THIS is what Kerry meant by his "I'd still vote to give Bush the authority to go to war" statment. He'd still be willing to give Bush the bargaining chip of the <i>ability</i> to go to war but "would have done almost everything differntly" in terms of executing the war (including not even invading!). When it all came down to it, Bush didn't do anything the right way, the way people wanted him to. He went it alone. He ignored due process and the concerns of tens of millions of Americans and rushed to war with <i>very</i> few allies (speaking in terms of troop #s here, not # of members in the "coalition of the willing").
Are Kerry and Edwards partners to this crime (of excecuting a war under false pretenses)? Somewhat. I'm willing to forgive them though. They've realized their mistakes and are trying to come up with better solutions to get us out of this mess. They are no more accomplices of Bush than a gun store owner is who sells to a person who uses his gun to commit a crime thinking he's going to use it for self-defense. However I'm not willing to forgive Bush, he has yet acknowledge his mistakes and try to work towards a better solution to the mess he's caused in Iraq. No, for him it's just "more of the same". He lives in a fantasy world of spin where the opinions of others don't matter.
As for me, my vote is going to Kerry.</div>
Are Kerry and Edwards partners to this crime (of excecuting a war under false pretenses)? Somewhat. I'm willing to forgive them though. They've realized their mistakes and are trying to come up with better solutions to get us out of this mess. They are no more accomplices of Bush than a gun store owner is who sells to a person who uses his gun to commit a crime thinking he's going to use it for self-defense. However I'm not willing to forgive Bush, he has yet acknowledge his mistakes and try to work towards a better solution to the mess he's caused in Iraq. No, for him it's just "more of the same". He lives in a fantasy world of spin where the opinions of others don't matter.
As for me, my vote is going to Kerry.</div>
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>While both are true, intelligence from numerous countries all said he did have WMD's and was a threat, i dont see how you lay this all on Bush. Also, unlike wars like Vietnam and Korea, maybe we went in for the wrong reasons, but there will still be a positive outcome.</div>
<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Numerous countries? Which ones? Britain, as far as I recall, made no announcements on intelligence that was independent of our own, and I can't think of any other countries that spoke up in support of the war using their own intelligence.</div>
<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>"Well, we tried to do it democratically, but it didn't work. So we just went ahead and did what we wanted to anyways". Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of "democracy"?</div>
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Dude, you can't be that ignorant. Muslim terrorists gathering to defend a Muslim nation against Christian invaders has nothing to do with Iraq being a "safe haven" for terrorists. And the Iraq - al Qaeda links were debunked a while ago.</div>
[b]Sorry, it looks like I'm going to have to kill you in an instant.[/b]
<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>You can't make the world better by bombing countries on flimsy pretexts or by putting ideology before people. Don't you understand how moronic it is to say "Democracy and freedom for the world, no matter the cost!"</div>
[b]Sorry, it looks like I'm going to have to kill you in an instant.[/b]
<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Even if the other Middle Eastern nations could afford to send troops to defend Iraq against some of world's most powerful military forces, what vested interest do they have there that's worth risking the ruin of their own nations as well? We see terrorists fighting us in Iraq because they're the only groups that can <I>afford</i> to fight us - in fact, fighting us is pretty much the <I>only</I> reason many of these militant groups have for existing. Terrorist groups don't have to worry about their capital cities being bombed, or their economies going down the toilet, or maintaining stable diplomatic relationships with other nations. The only thing terrorists are and need be concerned with is furthering their ideologies no matter the cost, and that's exactly what they're doing in Iraq (and, ironically, that's exactly what <I>we're</i> doing in Iraq as well, which should be more of a "red flag" to you than anything).</div>
[b]Sorry, it looks like I'm going to have to kill you in an instant.[/b]
<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '><b>Link:</b> <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/world/middle ... qi_wmd/</a>
A brief google only finds Egypt denying they made the claim privately, which means they certainly didn't do so publicly. Your "numerous countries" is only Britain, and I don't know if they were using intelligence independent of ours.</div>
A brief google only finds Egypt denying they made the claim privately, which means they certainly didn't do so publicly. Your "numerous countries" is only Britain, and I don't know if they were using intelligence independent of ours.</div>
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>Then make that 2 more mistakes on our agencies, Egypt and Jordan. Just goes to show that our agencies told Bush what they thought he wanted to hear, his decision based on what was laid out in front of him was sound. Kerry said he would done the same thing.</div>
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>I dont know what you mean, if you're asking if i want to go over there than hell no dont. But if you think everything is so peachy keen maybe you should go live in Iran for a while and lemme know what you think.</div>
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>I dont know what you are trying to say, if you're asking if i want to go over there than, hell no i dont. But if you think everything is so peachy keen maybe you should go live in Iran for a while and lemme know what you think.</div>
<div style='font: 10pt georgia; text-align: left; '>The UN succeeded in disarming Iraq.</div>
<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Flip, I'm Palestinian. I have family that lives in the West Bank and all over the Middle East (not to mention basically all over the world). I think I have a little better information coming my way regarding what it's really like over there than you do. I was simply offering up some of my knowledge</div>
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>He was? Show me proof. And I'm not talking about the US trying to control the inspections either. From what I remember, it was the US that decided it didn't care to wait for the inspectors to actually finish and went ahead when it knew it couldn't control the outcome to its benefit</div>
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Flip, you're an educated man who's acting like an uneducated, bigot hick, and I know you're not one. Are you even aware why there are 5 countries with veto power in the UN?</div>
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Are you so sure about that? Check out the times the five countries with veto power actually used it and see who used it the most and why. I'm not saying it's the US, but every country has used it</div>
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>I very much agree, but that doesn't mean that the war was justified, which is the root of this conversation. But what I will guarantee you is that even Iran - historically Iraq's enemy since way before the 80's - will say "we fucking hate Saddam, but fuck the US and their fucking foreign policy"</div>
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Don't insult me by putting words in my mouth. I think Tenet was a part of the "hearing what he wants to." I can't say why he stepped down. Maybe he was pressured, maybe he was asked. Maybe he felt responsible. Or maybe he just was tired of being in such a stressful position.</div>
<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>You have this tool called the "Internet" which is used as a research tool. Go use it. Don't be lazy and based your steadfast beliefs on an uneducated opinion. Let's talk about using the veto as a threat:
July 1973, S/10974
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution strongly deplored Israel's occupation of the Arab territories since 1967, and expressed serious concern with the Israeli authorities' lack of cooperation with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General.
January 1976, S/11940
Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions
.
The resolution called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967, and deplored Israel's refusal to implement relevant UN resolutions. It furthermore reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
March 1976, S/12022
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
In the draft, the Security Council expressed deep concern over Israeli measures to change the character of the occupied territories, in particular Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements, human rights violations, and called for an end of such measures.
June 1976, S/12119
Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, the right of return, and the right to national independence.
April 1980, S/13911
Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution affirmed the Palestinian right to establish an independent state, the right of return or compensation for loss of property for refugees not wishing to return, and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967.
April 1982, S/14943
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention
.
In the draft, the Security Council denounced Israeli interference with local governance in the West Bank, and its violations of the rights and liberties of the population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The resolution furthermore called on Israel to end all activities in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
April 1982, S/14985
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The draft strongly condemned the shooting of worshippers at Haram Al-Sharif on 11 April, 1982, and called on Israel to observe and apply the provisions of the Forth Geneva Convention, and other international laws.
June 1982, S/15185
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution draft condemned the Israeli non-compliance with resolutions 508 and 509, urged the parties to comply with the Hague Convention of 1907, and restated the Security Council's demands of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
June 1982, S/15255/Rev. 2
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
.
The resolution demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces from areas in and around Beirut, and that the parties would comply with resolution 508. It furthermore requested that the Secretary General would station UN military observers to supervise the ceasefire and disengagement in and around Beirut, and that the Secretary General would make proposals for the installation of a UN force to take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition force.
August 1982, S/15347/Rev. 1
Vote: 11 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions.
The resolution strongly condemned Israel for not implementing resolutions 516 and 517, called for their immediate implementation, and decided that all UN member-states would refrain from providing Israel with weapons or other military aid until Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.
August 1983, S/15895
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution called upon Israel to discontinue the establishment of new settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, to dismantle existing settlements, and to adhere to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The resolution furthermore rejected Israeli deportations and transfers of Palestinian civilians, and condemned attacks against the Arab civilian population. The Security Council also called upon other states to refrain from giving Israel any assistance related to the settlements, and stated its intention to examine ways of securing the implementation of the resolution, in the event of Israeli non-compliance
September 1985, S/17459
Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution draft deplored the repressive measures applied by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and called upon Israel to immediately cease the use of repressive measures, including the use of curfews, deportations, and detentions.
January 1986, S/17769
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli refusal to abide earlier Security Council resolutions, and called upon Israel to comply with these resolutions, as well as the norms of international law governing military occupation such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Security Council also expressed deep concern with violations of the sanctity of the Haram Al-Sharif, and with Israeli measures aimed at altering the character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.
January 1988, S/19466
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution called upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War to the territories occupied since 1967, and to conform to the Convention. The resolution moreover called upon Israel to refrain from practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.
April 1988, S/19780
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution expressed grave concerned with the Israeli use of collective punishment, including house demolitions. It condemned the policies and practices utilized by the Israeli authorities violating the human rights of the Palestinian People, especially the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army. Called on Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and urged it to desist from deporting Palestinians.
February 1989, S/20463
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli persistence in violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, in particular the shooting of Palestinian civilians, including children. It also deplored Israel's disregard of Security Council decisions, and called upon Israel to act in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant Security Council resolutions.
June 1989, S/20677
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution deplored the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, demanded that Israel would abstain from deporting Palestinian civilians for the occupied territories, and that it would ensure the safe return of those already deported. It also called upon Israel to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention, and requested that the Secretary General would give recommendations on measures guaranteeing compliance with the Convention, and the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.
November 1989, S/20945/Rev. 1
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
.
The resolution deplored the Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including the siege of towns, ransacking of homes, and confiscation of property. It called upon Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to lift the siege, and to return confiscated property to its owners. The resolution requested that the Secretary General would conduct on-site monitoring of the situation in the occupied territories.
May 1990, S/21326
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The draft resolution attempted to establish a commission to examine the situation related to Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.
May 1995, S/1995/394
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution confirmed that the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon Israel to refrain from such actions. It also expressed its support for the Middle East peace process and urged the parties to adhere to the accord agreed upon.
March 1997, S/1997/199
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution expressed deep concern with the Israeli plans to build new settlements in East Jerusalem, and called upon Israel to desist from measures, including the building of settlements, that would pre-empt the final status negotiations. The resolution once again called on Israel to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
March 1997, S/1997/241
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution demanded an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, and to all other measures related to settlements in the occupied territories.
March 2001, S/2001/270
Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution called for a total and immediate stop of all acts of violence, provocation, and collective punishment, as well as a complete cessation of Israeli settlement activities, and an end of the closures of the occupied territories. The resolution furthermore called for the implementation of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement, and expressed the Security Council's willingness to set up mechanisms to protect the Palestinian civilians, including the establishment of a UN observer force.
December 2001, S/2001/1199
Vote: 12 in favor, 1 veto (US) 2 abstentions.
In the resolution, the Security Council condemned all acts of terror, extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and destruction of properties, and demanded an end of all acts of violence, destruction and provocation. The resolution called on the parties to resume negotiations, and to implement the recommendations of the Mitchell Report. It also encouraged the establishment of a monitoring apparatus for the above mentioned implementation.</div>
July 1973, S/10974
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution strongly deplored Israel's occupation of the Arab territories since 1967, and expressed serious concern with the Israeli authorities' lack of cooperation with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General.
January 1976, S/11940
Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions
.
The resolution called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967, and deplored Israel's refusal to implement relevant UN resolutions. It furthermore reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
March 1976, S/12022
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
In the draft, the Security Council expressed deep concern over Israeli measures to change the character of the occupied territories, in particular Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements, human rights violations, and called for an end of such measures.
June 1976, S/12119
Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, the right of return, and the right to national independence.
April 1980, S/13911
Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution affirmed the Palestinian right to establish an independent state, the right of return or compensation for loss of property for refugees not wishing to return, and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967.
April 1982, S/14943
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention
.
In the draft, the Security Council denounced Israeli interference with local governance in the West Bank, and its violations of the rights and liberties of the population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The resolution furthermore called on Israel to end all activities in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
April 1982, S/14985
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The draft strongly condemned the shooting of worshippers at Haram Al-Sharif on 11 April, 1982, and called on Israel to observe and apply the provisions of the Forth Geneva Convention, and other international laws.
June 1982, S/15185
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution draft condemned the Israeli non-compliance with resolutions 508 and 509, urged the parties to comply with the Hague Convention of 1907, and restated the Security Council's demands of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
June 1982, S/15255/Rev. 2
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
.
The resolution demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces from areas in and around Beirut, and that the parties would comply with resolution 508. It furthermore requested that the Secretary General would station UN military observers to supervise the ceasefire and disengagement in and around Beirut, and that the Secretary General would make proposals for the installation of a UN force to take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition force.
August 1982, S/15347/Rev. 1
Vote: 11 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions.
The resolution strongly condemned Israel for not implementing resolutions 516 and 517, called for their immediate implementation, and decided that all UN member-states would refrain from providing Israel with weapons or other military aid until Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.
August 1983, S/15895
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution called upon Israel to discontinue the establishment of new settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, to dismantle existing settlements, and to adhere to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The resolution furthermore rejected Israeli deportations and transfers of Palestinian civilians, and condemned attacks against the Arab civilian population. The Security Council also called upon other states to refrain from giving Israel any assistance related to the settlements, and stated its intention to examine ways of securing the implementation of the resolution, in the event of Israeli non-compliance
September 1985, S/17459
Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution draft deplored the repressive measures applied by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and called upon Israel to immediately cease the use of repressive measures, including the use of curfews, deportations, and detentions.
January 1986, S/17769
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli refusal to abide earlier Security Council resolutions, and called upon Israel to comply with these resolutions, as well as the norms of international law governing military occupation such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Security Council also expressed deep concern with violations of the sanctity of the Haram Al-Sharif, and with Israeli measures aimed at altering the character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.
January 1988, S/19466
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution called upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War to the territories occupied since 1967, and to conform to the Convention. The resolution moreover called upon Israel to refrain from practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.
April 1988, S/19780
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution expressed grave concerned with the Israeli use of collective punishment, including house demolitions. It condemned the policies and practices utilized by the Israeli authorities violating the human rights of the Palestinian People, especially the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army. Called on Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and urged it to desist from deporting Palestinians.
February 1989, S/20463
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli persistence in violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, in particular the shooting of Palestinian civilians, including children. It also deplored Israel's disregard of Security Council decisions, and called upon Israel to act in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant Security Council resolutions.
June 1989, S/20677
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution deplored the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, demanded that Israel would abstain from deporting Palestinian civilians for the occupied territories, and that it would ensure the safe return of those already deported. It also called upon Israel to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention, and requested that the Secretary General would give recommendations on measures guaranteeing compliance with the Convention, and the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.
November 1989, S/20945/Rev. 1
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
.
The resolution deplored the Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including the siege of towns, ransacking of homes, and confiscation of property. It called upon Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to lift the siege, and to return confiscated property to its owners. The resolution requested that the Secretary General would conduct on-site monitoring of the situation in the occupied territories.
May 1990, S/21326
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The draft resolution attempted to establish a commission to examine the situation related to Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.
May 1995, S/1995/394
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution confirmed that the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon Israel to refrain from such actions. It also expressed its support for the Middle East peace process and urged the parties to adhere to the accord agreed upon.
March 1997, S/1997/199
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution expressed deep concern with the Israeli plans to build new settlements in East Jerusalem, and called upon Israel to desist from measures, including the building of settlements, that would pre-empt the final status negotiations. The resolution once again called on Israel to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
March 1997, S/1997/241
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution demanded an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, and to all other measures related to settlements in the occupied territories.
March 2001, S/2001/270
Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution called for a total and immediate stop of all acts of violence, provocation, and collective punishment, as well as a complete cessation of Israeli settlement activities, and an end of the closures of the occupied territories. The resolution furthermore called for the implementation of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement, and expressed the Security Council's willingness to set up mechanisms to protect the Palestinian civilians, including the establishment of a UN observer force.
December 2001, S/2001/1199
Vote: 12 in favor, 1 veto (US) 2 abstentions.
In the resolution, the Security Council condemned all acts of terror, extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and destruction of properties, and demanded an end of all acts of violence, destruction and provocation. The resolution called on the parties to resume negotiations, and to implement the recommendations of the Mitchell Report. It also encouraged the establishment of a monitoring apparatus for the above mentioned implementation.</div>
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Our ally is whoever we want to be. Don't forget that Iraq was once our ally.</div>
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.