so whats every1s view on the US/Iraq situaton? [Archive] - ShowEQ Open Source Project Message Forums

high_jeeves

02-12-2003, 01:15 AM

Clinton this, clinton that... Does anyone remember that is was Reagan that armed Saddam in the first place? I mean, I'm not a clinton fan, but lets be honest here.. he may have done nothing helpful, but atleast he didnt sell them dirt cheap, high tech arms, knowing that he had already killed many of his own people...

I agree inspectors wont work, but you cant send them in, and then immediately ignore them.. what are we working so hard to defend? Our honest, open, diplomatic way of life? No wonder most of the rest of the world hates us.. we badmouth them, while breaking all of the rules we, and they set for international behavior.. I think we need to either start playing buy the rules, or atleast admit that we arent going to play by the rules...

The entire concept that dissension (the voicing of an opinion that doesnt agree with yours) is a thread to world peace, is one of the most unamerican things i have ever heard. What is the point of free speech, if using it labels you as a threat to world peace?

Unfortunately, we have had a serious of presidents whose foreign policy exposure, before presidency was minimal at best... Our tried and true solution of arming some semi-bad guys, to get rid of some other really bad guys has bitten us in the ass more times than we can count.. There are two solutions, that I see to solving these problems, both are odious:

1) Fuck em... let them deal with their own problems.. this keeps us out of it, but leaves alot of the rest of the people in the world totally screwed... this is the Pat Buchanan philosopy, no wonder he will never be president (althought, he seems to have the elderly Jewish vote in Florida, for some reason...)

2) Kill em all, and install our own governments.. this solutions is equally as odious, because it makes everyone in the world hate us..

Being the preeminate super power sucks... its a lose/lose situation.. if you dont do enough, you are isolationist and univolved... if you do too much, you are overbearing and bent on world domination... Its a tough call, and a tough decision to make.. i hate to see it broken down to the simple one sided terms that I see here on these boards.. especially since many of the facts presented are questionable..

N. Korea is a fairly stable and diplomatic country compared to Iraq.

Huh? Their leader is the second in a family-ruled communist dictatorship, that demands 100% attention and obedience, kills anyone who could be rivaling them, starves his people with a refusal of international help, and just for kicks, has a $750,000 a year liquor bill with a major congac distributor... We can argue all day about stability, but calling north korea a diplomatic country is insane.. they have broken the all of their international treaties that relate to arms and financial support, and when somebody calls them on it, they threaten their neighbors... not exactly what I think of when i hear the word "diplomatic".

I fail to understand how educated people in the country can be so hell bent on one party or another, blame all the problems in the world on the other party, and never say anything bad about there own.. I think it is the trend we are seeing in this country over the last 25 years or so, that treats politics, and law as a game, with winners and losers... It amazes me when people treat politics like a football game, or are cheering in the streets when a certain verdict comes back from a court (specifically remembering the OJ trial).. I mean, this is real world stuff, think about what you are saying, dont take everything that the media says, and dont villify, or praise somebody simply based on their party affiliations... If all you can see is black and white, you miss the big picture..

--Jeeves

Lyroschen

02-12-2003, 06:10 AM

Been enjoying this thread... particularly Jeeves' posts. It's not easy to get ones brain wrapped completely around a topic as large as politics. Then adding foreign policy, public trends, morality, economics, etc... it'd amaze me if anyone was able to make real sense of it all, instead of just picking the pieces that seem most important at the time.

This particular issue hits on so many levels it makes my head hurt to try and consider it all. So, I'll leave out the local issues (since that's been the biggest debate thus far), and ask about the world theater.

Does the UN want the US to take action? Obviously, no. If it was just a matter of whether or not Sadaam was a bad guy, it'd likely already be a done deal. So, what are the consequences of kicking Iraq's butt?

Well, first of all, it'd give the US even more cause for thinking of itself as the world police. Every time we successfully stop a bad guy from doing bad things, and make some money for the US while we're at it, we get a little more attitude, and have a little less respect for the rest of the world. We're already viewed as the teenager who think's they're too smart to listen to mom and dad anymore. The press plays a HUGE role in this, since we have to get everyone to agree that the US is justified in their action. Without popular support, we couldn't maintain our "good guy" image.

Who gets Iraq after we level it?
That doesn't just mean who gets ownership (since they can maintain their own government, etc). But, someone will get to determine what type of government that would be. Additionally, conditions and controls would be put in place to ensure that Iraq didn't become a threat again. Who would get to play that role? I can see many countries opposing the US gaining that kind of control. Especially since the oil becomes such a bargaining chip.

Personally, I'm in favor of "Operation Cherry Squishy". For those not familiar with this possible outcome, it involves the following:
1) Levelling the entire middle east with precision cluster-fucking.
2) Sending in an army of engineers to build a HUGE parking lot.
3) Populating said parking lot with "Quicky Marts" (with gas stations where possible).

Anyway, back to the point... for those getting frustrated about the UN being hesitant to take action, or pissed off that global politics takes soooo long to get anything done, remember that to do what we may think needs to be done may very well mean completely changing the scope of international politics. And lots of folks aren't going to want such changes to happen unless they get to be the ones that benefit from the changes.

And the following seems applicable:

Politics may be the truest word in the English language, since it stems from Poly - meaning many, and Ticks - meaning blood sucking insects.

cryptorad

02-12-2003, 09:28 AM

... I tend to agree with your comments. But not your options. Also, you miss my point here.

Reagan sold Iraq some weapons and systems. Everyone buys their weapons somewhere.. what's the point? Of course.. all the tanks and such were Russian, but MY POINT WAS.. Clinton effectively gave N. Korea nukes. Handed them the pieces they were missing to manufacture several nuclear weapons.

And N. Korea has had them.. and haven't used them yet. I do not think Saddam is that stable. That was my comment on the comparison. It was a bit tounge in cheek .. and you portrayed it as literal. Of COURSE N. Korea isn't a democratic country.. and I think I realize that. You should realize I know that too.

Yes.. I'm a bit partisan right now but it is in RESPONSE. And only because I see the mistakes of liberal policies as threatening the very lives of my children right now. This is true.. and a fact.. and no amount of "I shouldn't feel that way.." is going to change it. I never said the conservatives were all knowing or correct in all things. And I don't feel that way. In fact.. I think we realize how many mistakes are made on all sides to get us to this point we're at now.

You offer isolationism as an option. History has shown this to fail again and again and again. So that leaves your second option.. kill them all.

I tend not to agree with either of your statements then. I think they are both wrong. I think we need a course that is very similar to the one we are on. Sadly.. it is not working very well as we have nothing but Partisan politics (From Dem's, France, Germany and Russia who'd ALL like to see the current administration choke on it) causing the situation we are in WHICH IS DANGEROUS.

That's my complaint. And.. My opinion. Again.. I feel it is based on facts.

Mr. Suspicious

02-12-2003, 10:12 AM

"If you're not with me, you're against me" cryptorad?

The world != the US of A. Russians were'nt surpressed when they introduced communism (as a matter of fact their population DEMANDED it, revolted for it). Are Cubans surpressed? Are Saudians? Are Irakies? From your cultural view: yes, how about from theirs? Stating something as a fact only viewing it from your cultural viewpoint and completely ignoring the cultural differences that lead others to believe otherwise: What a dense vision. "Russians love their children to", please keep that in mind.

Unlike popular believes: there is no good and there is no evil, there's only "something on a sliding scale between those two".

I'm not telling you how revolting the death penalty as used in the USA is to most of the world, you don't hear me bash Americans, nor America for that. Or the fact that the US is the only country in the world that does not recognize the International Warcrime and Crime to Humanity Courts in The Hague where Milosovic and Mladiz are being prosecuted currently. You don't hear me give my opinion about the fact that the US President even a law that gives him the right to invade The Netherlands to free Americans from that Court if/when they have been apprehended by UN forces, without even having to consult the US Senate. Not to mention other laws that "lessens control" the US government, and inhabitants have.... IMO, this is moving the US towards a dictatorship slowly step-by-step (not a flame, just an observation)

If we allow the US now to attack someone without a valid reason, what will keep it from doing it again in the future? What will keep it from doing it to.... us?

cryptorad

02-12-2003, 11:24 AM

I agree with you for a fair amount.

Yes.. my views are from my perspective.. what I call freedom. Based on a political system where I supposedly elect who I want. It's not perfect.. but it seems to be one of, if not, the best. Dissenting opinions are allowed and heard. The communists have had a presidential candidate in this country every election for longer then I have been alive. They've never won, btw. ;)

As a matter of comparison.. how many Republican candidates have been on the ballot in Cuba? Russia? Iraq? Saudi? I believe you offered them as 'repressed' societies by my view. There are those that say they are repressive. Do they even have ballots? Oh.. that's right... Saddam received a perfect 100% of the Iraqi vote. Yeah.. no repressive BS there. ;) There is a FAIR amount of evidence to the effect that they are repressive. And.. there is a CRAPLOAD of citizens from those countries who 'escaped' to the US and requested political asylum. Now.. why do you think that happens????

I happen to work for a Cuban who was booted out of Cuba. You absolutely do NOT want to have this discussion with him. He'll have a few comments for you that would be downright rude.

You are correct.. we are becoming more repressive.. and losing our freedoms. And.. I personally.. will vote to increase those restrictions and forfeit my freedoms. I do it in exchange for security. Since we are the target of so many attacks.. we need to sacrifice our freedoms. ONE day.. they will only laugh at how open our borders are today, and how free we have been. Because.. with the current trend I can assure you they will not remain that way.

There is a reason everyone comes here to attack us. There is NO PLACE ELSE ON EARTH like this country. Our freedoms.. and our massive amount of cheap high quality goods makes us the best place to be to accomplish almost anything. Either terror attacks.. or starting a business. MOST people who come here want the latter. Some want the former.

Communism was a revolution in some countries... to escape a repressive monarchy. Which then was enforced by a dictator. Which then has been otherthrown in many countries in exchange for democracy. That seems to be the trend historically. Communism doesn't work economically. Socially, it makes alot of sense, but the evidence is blatantly obvious that it doesn't work long term.

There are countries that are strongly social and economically sound. But they are all partly capitalist based socialism. Those countries are great places to visit. Incidentally.. those countries also export a massive amount of goods to the US. We're "customers". Maybe something like that will be possible when there are no countries that wish to expand their power thru attacks. Sadly.. we don't live in that world today. And no one in any of those 'social' countries is any position to do anything about the threats that Iraq makes. Those countries have dropped out of the responsibility of world security. In exchange for social and economic "bliss". More power to you.. but it seems a tad hypocrite to criticize a country that IS doing something about it. Unless you just want Iraq as another 'customer'. After all.. that's how France does it.

Don't get me wrong. I do NOT want a war. I don't want people to die horribly.. maybe even my own son who is exactly at draft age right now. But make no mistake. There is GOING TO BE A WAR. And the failure of the international community to stop Saddam is the cause. We had a war with him 10 years ago. The international community (France in particular) begged us to stop as we were going into Iraq. We did. Now.. over 10 years later with ALL the 'efforts' of the international community the situation has gotten worse and very deadly. And Saddam has blantantly violated EVERY rule we imposed in the cease fire agreement. He has violated EVERY rule the international community imposed. He has violated EVERY UN resolution passed.

Here's a cut and paste. Not my words.

"Iraqi Lieutenant General Amer al-Saadi, described as a top advisor to Saddam Hussein, admitted that the evil dictator he serves is "on the verge of developing nuclear weapons." This is not a story? This guy says, "We have the complete documentation from design to all the other things, but we haven't reached the final assembly of a bomb nor tested it." "

Also be aware.. Saddam's missles can't reach the US. But they can reach Western Europe. Colin Powell has been laying all this out again and again and again to the UN. That must be why 18 European countries are NOW solidly on our side in a forceful disarming of Iraq. But.. if you are listening to France, those folks who hold 1.3 BILLION dollars worth of oil rights to Iraqs oil fields, you might think otherwise. Those oil rights were probably in exchange for the nuclear reactor and technology they SOLD to Iraq. The one the astronaut who died in the shuttle recently blew up. Yeah.... the politics of this war are about oil. It's just NOT the US who cares about it. We have our own oil. And we just implemented MILLIONS of dollars (per GW Bush) into developing fuel cells so we can get rid of oil ALTOGETHER. About damn time.. is my opinion.

There is a myriad of reasons behind this situation. Enough blame and failings to go around. The US certainly has it's share.. but I consider it a balanced ratio. We have a large part of blame.. but since we tend to do more.. that only makes sense. However.. we did NOT START this problem. France is hugely responsible. They (along with Britain) setup this horrible middle east situation politically. They bailed when it was time to straighten it out and they are now increasing the danger of war by refusing to accept responsibility. They want to keep their economic investment in Iraq alive. You want a country to pick on.. I advise you go check out France's history and involvment in the region a bit more before you lay it all on the US and say that we have a 'narrow' view.

We have liberal, conservative, communistic and socialistic sources of information in our country on a regular basis. The internet isn't our only source of information. ;)

Cryonic

02-12-2003, 11:51 AM

I do not agree that we should sacrifice our freedoms for security. Hmm, what was that quote again,

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither" or something to that effect. Attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

I believe that by sacrificing our basic freedoms (those listed in the Bill of Rights) moves us away from where we should be. I'm a staunch believer in Freedom of Speech, the Right to bear and keep arms, the right to my basic Privacy from government intrusion. You speak a dissenting opinion from me. Guess what, without the first amendment you wouldn't be allowed to. So, while I don't agree with your opinion, I do agree that you can say it, I just don't have to listen to it :).

cryptorad

02-12-2003, 12:08 PM

Interesting quote.

I have to agree.. and I don't like the sacrifice. I just think it's something that we are living with today. I tend to believe that until those that would attack are defeated.. we will need the loss of freedom to protect ourselves.

Was Ben's quote in reference to something occuring during our revolution?

If so.. it would be poetic that we may be at another crossroads in our history as well.

I have a quote to offer too.. Roosevelt

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.

So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

- Theodore Roosevelt

Cryonic

02-12-2003, 01:29 PM

Giving up our freedoms means we have lost. They, the they who dispise America and Americans (even if they've never met any of us) win.

The reason is, when will we get our freedoms back if we give them up? You state you are willing to give them up "until those that would attack are defeated". Which those? The Al Queda? The Palestinians? Islamic Jihad? Iraq? China? Cuba? At what point do you consider the threat ended and are willing to try and get back your freedoms?

That is the biggest problem. Once you are willing to give them up, getting them back becomes that much harder to do.

lala

02-12-2003, 04:05 PM

wow - never thought that this thread will be out of flame that long ;o)

just want to drop a few lines form a neutral country (austria):

no discussion - saddam is a bad guy in the point of view of the "western" world

but who is allowed to judge between good and bad?

some people think death penalty is good - most of the "western world" disagree (as far as I know there is no country in the EU with death penalty)

who is allowed to judge wheter a leader of a country is a bad guy? the leader of another country?

I dont care much about war or not war. But in my opinion the decision should be to the UN (which was designed to point out the bad guys to help the world to live in peace).
If the UN think that there is no other solution than to bomb iraq, than this should happen. But if the USA start a war without the approvement of the UN, they are not even better than any other agressor.

In my opinion GWBush is trying to abuse the fact that he has "the biggest gun in the world". Most of the inhabitants of europe disagree with USAs plan to invade Iraq even without the approvement from the UN (at least if we belive opinion polls right). The Governments of Germany and France are one with their inhabitants (unlike other countries like GB, spain...), and USPoloticians blame them for trying to find a peaceful way...

if everyone trying to solve a political conflict with invading other contries this would be a VERY unfriendly world ;o(

Sorry for my bad english (not my native language)

Cryonic

02-12-2003, 04:35 PM

If this was something that happened only a year after Desert Storm, ok I could see trying to find a peaceful solution, but he (Saddam) has been defying UN regulations and the cease-fire agreement that was put in place back in 1991-2. That means this SHIT has been happening and being allowed to happen for the past TWELVE YEARS. He's shown that the ONLY thing he respects is FORCE.

Clinton wasn't willing to do it, though he did get us involved in other areas (e.g. Somalia, Yugoslavia, etc...). I personally don't think that those were places we should have sent troops without sending them in full bore. If you are going to use force to do something, don't tie the hands of the people you are sending.

board Lizard

02-12-2003, 07:54 PM

but who is allowed to judge between good and bad?

we have the weapons, we decide.

TDES

02-12-2003, 08:02 PM

My .02

1) Clinton didn't go to the UN to bomb Serbia.

2) Both had (have) political sub-plots under the guise of war.

3) Were the Serbs an "immanent threat" ?

and to my point ... why the hell weren't any of you debating all this during that time ? It was ok then because our 401k's were artificially inflated to lull us into financial bliss. Which no president deserves credit for it's development or demise.

I'm no card carrying republican (registered Dem actually) but it really bothers me that the nay-sayers pull this crap when it's blatantly obvious that's it's just because they don't "like" dubbya.

Didn't see Sean Penn or mommies in pink touring Serbia either ....

"History not remembered is doomed to repeat itself" or however that Spanish philosopher put it.

The UN is a joke, this whole thing is nothing but proof. And anyone that thinks Russia, France and Germany's objection to war is based on morals needs to stop playing ostrich.

Don't let Wolf Blitzer or Rush Limbaugh teach you politics, do like what is said here every day and search for your news. You'd be surprised what you find (on both sides of the argument)

As far as the war ... like it or not, it's happening. I can't do anything about it other than remember to vote for the people that did what I felt was in my best interest (relative for a politician). I will also pray to the powers that be for the safe return of all of our service people (including my sis) from whatever happens.

That's how I see it ... then again, I could be wrong.

futuro

02-12-2003, 09:54 PM

Well, I know that a lot of people are firmly entrenched on either side of this conflict, and mere words aren't going to sway anybody, but since this is still a free country for the time being, I'm weighing in.

Sometimes one has to take a step back from their own views and see what others think of us (The USA).

Many countries and people around the world see us as a country falling into a pattern of world domination, by our military or economic might. We are *not* hated for our freedoms, as some would have you believe, but for our governments actions around the world. Many people think that even if the UN does go along with us, it will only be because of bribery, extortion or threat of force. Check out the deals we have made with a lot of the countries that are "supporting" the Iraq war. Check out the threats of us cutting off aid to countries that don't support the war. You might have to go to foreign news sources, since a lot of this isn't reported in the US media.

We sometimes look like the big bullies on the block and other countries go along out of fear. Our military spending is fully *half* of the world's total. We have bases in dozens of countries,
and can be in any part of the world in force in a matter of weeks. Wouldn't you be scared?

Granted, given the stories about Saddam, he's probably not a nice guy, but really, what has he done since '91? Nothing. His military is 1/10 of what it was, and even if he has chemical or biological weapons, those materials were given to him by *us* in the 1980's to aid his war against Iran. Now, we've been targeting him and bombing his country for twelve years. Wouldn't you want to have some kind of defense against this huge country and it's military? And just to clear up one of the lies being propagated by the media in the US, the inspectors *weren't* kicked out by Saddam, they left becasue WE were going to start bombing in 1998.

Just some food for thought. This whole area the British Empire carved up with no respect for nationalistic or ethnic concerns. From North Africa, to Bosnia, to India, Great Britain screwed up things so badly as it "granted independence" to the nations it created, we're still paying for today and for the foreseeable future. We, as the most powerful country in the world, need to show some compassion and respect fo these people who have been stepped on for many years. We need to be a voice of reason and restraint, to set an example of peace and security to these people. We don't need to show the west is only interested in their problems when oil is involved, and invade when our supply is threatened.

Think how that makes them feel. Think about how *you* would feel. Think about how, when the 13 colonies felt abused and used, we revolted too.

Just think... don't let others do it for you.

Cryonic

02-12-2003, 10:45 PM

Just a minor correction, the UK wasn't the only country responsible for how places like Africa were divided up. Most of the European powers were responsible.

bubbahlicious

02-14-2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by TDES
My .02

1) Clinton didn't go to the UN to bomb Serbia.

2) Both had (have) political sub-plots under the guise of war.

3) Were the Serbs an "immanent threat" ?

and to my point ... why the hell weren't any of you debating all this during that time ? It was ok then because our 401k's were artificially inflated to lull us into financial bliss. Which no president deserves credit for it's development or demise.

We went into Serbia because Milosovich was engaging in blatant ethnic cleansing (genocide).

Clinton was probably reacting to criticims that he acted too late, and with far too little force, to prevent a near-genocide in Africa (April 1994, when the Rwandan Hutu militias exterminated 500,000 ethnic Tutsi). But regardless of over-compensation, some sort of quick action was ethically required in Kosovo.

Consider an analogy. When a bully is beating up a smaller kid in a playground, an ethically responsible third party adult does not pause to consider if that bully is an 'iminent threat' to him or his own familly before taking action. Nor does he first petition the local PTA or school board before stepping in to keep the smaller kid from getting beaten to a bloody pulp.

I just looked into the history of the conflict (granted from the perspective of the NATO allies - http://www.nato.int/kosovo/history.htm) My sense is that the UN would have continued to advocate half-hearted, and futile, measures, with no military muscle to back them up. Milosovich would have continued with his racist, Nazi-esque atrocities to the current day.

It is clear that our imperative in the former Yugoslavia was morally justified. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/307221.stm) Perhaps our execution was flawed - but it was far better than simply letting the extermination of an entire population take place.

To my informed opinion, there is no such ethical clarity for an action in Iraq. There's been a question on my mind for a very long time - why are George Bush and Dick Cheney so obsessed with Iraq? (Aside from the fact that George Jr. is the son of the last US President to attack Iraq, a President who ultimately failed to oust Hussein from power...).

The best logical conclusion I can draw: Iraq is the world's second largest producer of oil, yet oddly enough, Iraq only currently provides the US with 2% of our oil imports. The Bushes are an old-money, Texas oil family. Cheney is similarly tied to the oil industry. These people rose to power drilling for, importing, and selling oil. How can these facts NOT raise questions about the motivation of an attempted regime change in Iraq?

I know it's hard to keep a sense of perspective when discussing politics. But to me, there is a very clear, ethical reason why we went after Milosovich. That clarity is sorely lacking in today's situation.

Iam_Walrus

02-14-2003, 05:09 PM

To my informed opinion, there is no such ethical clarity for an action in Iraq.

So this dictator and bully who, twelve years ago, took over a small, but rich country, used bio-chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people, and who has yet to abide by the UN's dictates and who currently has been attempting to produce more illegal weapons (weapons that are outlawed by the Geneva Convention) is just an OK guy by your reckoning? This madman has already proven that he's a danger to his own people, let alone the rest of the world, but you don't think someone needs to put a stop to him?

So he puts a nuclear or even bio-chemical warhead on an inter-continental delivery system - you think this fool won't use it? He has already proven that he'll use such weaponry intra-continentally.

How informed are you? You're obviously informed of the current liberal slanderous side of any domestic issue in the US, but to what end? Do you wish to feel the chemical or nuclear burn in your neck of the woods because we didn't take out a proven menace? A menace to those within and without of his country? At what point do you decide to support your president and country - before or after the unreasonable nutball in Iraq causes harm to the domestic US?

Honestly, and I mean honestly answer this for just yourself - if Gore was in office, would you be more receptive to this issue of international threat?

Take political affiliations and shove them in your ass. I was livid when Bush(1) didn't take care of business and make sure Hussein was dead. To me, that was the only acceptable solution. As far as I'm concerned, we should have let the Israeli's put a hole in that bastard's head when they were planning on taking him out. But that's over and done. I didn't like Clinton and I didn't like the Serbian issue, but I understood why he had to make the tough decision to send our boys over and stop the outrage that was happening there. I tell you, I still can't stand Clinton to this day, but I supported my president in doing what humanity required of him to do. That was the one thing that Clinton did right in his eight years in office, at least according to my views.

Bush is now trying to correct his daddy's mistake and is showing valor in the face of a very tough issue. The liberals will take any chance to slash at him, but he's being something that this country has not legitimately had for two decades - a decisive leader.

Let me load you up with some ammo for your flamethrowers - I am a registered Republican. I voted for Bush. Come to think of it, I vote against every democrat on the ballet unless the democrat is the only one on the ballet - then I just don't vote that seat. I am for minimal social programs and a strong national defense (WHY? Well, we Americans tend to piss everyone off...). I am pro-life and I am whole-heartedly against "gay rights" as I find the special rights that the term actually equates to fundementally unconstitutional. I am pro-gun since the criminals have an ample supply, there's no reason that the law-abiding citizenry should be kept from firing back. And to throw a wrench into those who are in a liberal, frothing frenzy, I am pro-legalization of drugs. I figure that if the gov't controls and regulates the drugs in America as it does with booze/cigs, we could have such a vast intake of "sin tax" revenues that we could lower taxes for all of us that don't use that crap.

Do I support Bush in his push for "War in Iraq?" Fuck yeah! Would I have supported Gore in the same? Fuck yeah! The political slant of our domestic leadership has no bearing whatsoever on the global threat that a lunatic with weapons of mass-destruction constitutes to the world at large.

high_jeeves

02-14-2003, 06:55 PM

You're obviously informed of the current liberal slanderous side of any domestic issue in the US.

Come to think of it, I vote against every democrat on the ballet unless the democrat is the only one on the ballet - then I just don't vote that seat.

I got to here, and laughed.. this is clearly not an objective response... I mean, you clearly make political decisions with your eyes, not with your brain... You vote based 100% on the party, and 0% on the issues...

I am whole-heartedly against "gay rights"

So, you are a bigot, too? People are people.. as long as they arent hurting anyone else, or breaking any laws, what right do YOU have to judge them?

So this dictator and bully who, twelve years ago, took over a small, but rich country, used bio-chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people, and who has yet to abide by the UN's dictates and who currently has been attempting to produce more illegal weapons (weapons that are outlawed by the Geneva Convention) is just an OK guy by your reckoning?

You cant just say "hey, you were bad 12 years ago, we kill you now.." I was 100% behind Bush 1 in the first war with Iraq (I voted for him over Clinton in his re-election bid)... he did very bad things, and had to be punished for him... I wish Bush 1 had the balls to get the whole job done then.. but, THAT WAS 12 YEARS AGO! Its too late to make decisions based on those facts..

As for the weapons... show me proof that he has, or is making those weapons.. can't? Well, thats because we have only been inspecting for a very short period of time...

So he puts a nuclear or even bio-chemical warhead on an inter-continental delivery system - you think this fool won't use it? He has already proven that he'll use such weaponry intra-continentally.

Actually, I do think the fool wont use it, unless we attack.. even the most republic members of the administration dont think he will commit a first strike...

If we are going to start attacking the countries of every leader we dont like, we are in for a VERY long time.. Cuba, N. Korea, China, Most of Africa, Most of South America...

As a side note, if you dont bring anything to this discussion other than a repetition of the latest presedential talking points, just provide us with a link to read...

--Jeeves

bubbahlicious

02-14-2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Iam_Walrus

So this dictator and bully who, twelve years ago, took over a small, but rich country, used bio-chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people, and who has yet to abide by the UN's dictates and who currently has been attempting to produce more illegal weapons (weapons that are outlawed by the Geneva Convention) is just an OK guy by your reckoning? This madman has already proven that he's a danger to his own people, let alone the rest of the world, but you don't think someone needs to put a stop to him?
I never said Hussein was an 'OK guy' by my reckoning. But I question your assumptions from the start. Show me the proof that he's 'attempting to produce illegal weapons'. Iraq just agreed to allow U2 spy-craft fly over thier airspace. The inspectors just reported that they have free access everywhere, and yet they cannot find a shred of evidence that Iraq is producing said weapons.

So he puts a nuclear or even bio-chemical warhead on an inter-continental delivery system - you think this fool won't use it? He has already proven that he'll use such weaponry intra-continentally.
Back up your claims please. A link, some facts, SOMETHING. You're doing a great job imagining scenarios, but as far as I can tell, you're operating off innuendos spoon-fed to you by the Administration.

How informed are you? You're obviously informed of the current liberal slanderous side of any domestic issue in the US, but to what end?
Slander...? That's a pretty strong accusation. What did I say that was slanderous? Please stop sidestepping, and address the points I raised.

Do you wish to feel the chemical or nuclear burn in your neck of the woods because we didn't take out a proven menace? A menace to those within and without of his country? At what point do you decide to support your president and country - before or after the unreasonable nutball in Iraq causes harm to the domestic US?
Again, there is ZERO evidence of a link between Iraq and Al-Queda. More fear and war mongering is all I hear from you. I support my president when he does things which make sense. Duh.

Honestly, and I mean honestly answer this for just yourself - if Gore was in office, would you be more receptive to this issue of international threat?
Gore would never have pulled this kind of stunt. He's not a spoiled little brat/failed businessman. I respect people who can speak intelligently, argue the facts, and back up thier claims.

Take political affiliations and shove them in your ass.
Right back at you, fucktard. Stop spewing back what you hear from your daddy, and start backing up your riddiculous claims, or go home. I never said a fucking thing about political party affiliations. But thanks for bringing up my ass. 'Cause it's just about as relevant to this thread as the rest of your rantings.

I was livid when Bush(1) didn't take care of business and make sure Hussein was dead. To me, that was the only acceptable solution. As far as I'm concerned, we should have let the Israeli's put a hole in that bastard's head when they were planning on taking him out. But that's over and done. I didn't like Clinton and I didn't like the Serbian issue, but I understood why he had to make the tough decision to send our boys over and stop the outrage that was happening there. I tell you, I still can't stand Clinton to this day, but I supported my president in doing what humanity required of him to do. That was the one thing that Clinton did right in his eight years in office, at least according to my views.
Bush Sr. didn't take care of business back in '91? Are you joking yourself? All he did was take care of business. More specifically, the big oil business.

Do you realize that we went into Kuwait, and put a monarch back in power? Kuwait is a goddam kingdom, not a Democracy. Why do you think we did that? Because Hussein is a threat to the free world? No. It's because Bush Sr. didn't want BP, Exxon, Texaco, and Shell to loose distribution rights to Kuwaiti oil. Bush Sr. didn't go after Hussein, because he got what he needed. He took care of 'business'.

Bush is now trying to correct his daddy's mistake and is showing valor in the face of a very tough issue. The liberals will take any chance to slash at him, but he's being something that this country has not legitimately had for two decades - a decisive leader.
Decisiveness is only a desireable trait when you act on informed decisions. Sorry, the guy decisively lost 3 fortunes in the oil industry (none of it his own money) before he finally got lucky buying two percent of a baseball team. There's a line between decisive and impulsive.

Let me load you up with some ammo for your flamethrowers - I am a registered Republican. I voted for Bush. Come to think of it, I vote against every democrat on the ballet unless the democrat is the only one on the ballet - then I just don't vote that seat. I am for minimal social programs and a strong national defense (WHY? Well, we Americans tend to piss everyone off...). I am pro-life and I am whole-heartedly against "gay rights" as I find the special rights that the term actually equates to fundementally unconstitutional. I am pro-gun since the criminals have an ample supply, there's no reason that the law-abiding citizenry should be kept from firing back.
You make my case better than any words of mine could. You're blindly supporting everything you've been spoonfed since day 1, and are making no attempt to validate any of your assertions (except the gun thing - you seem to be advocating throwing out rule of law and a justice system, in favor of vigilanteeism. While this attitude is truly ludicrous, at least you made some feeble attempt at backing up something you said. Bravo!).

And to throw a wrench into those who are in a liberal, frothing frenzy, I am pro-legalization of drugs. I figure that if the gov't controls and regulates the drugs in America as it does with booze/cigs, we could have such a vast intake of "sin tax" revenues that we could lower taxes for all of us that don't use that crap.

The only person who seems to be in a frothing frenzy is you, my friend, with your vitriolic attacks on liberals and Democrats. However, I agree with you about the drug issue. We've been going the wrong direction on that issue for half a century now.

Do I support Bush in his push for "War in Iraq?" Fuck yeah! Would I have supported Gore in the same? Fuck yeah! The political slant of our domestic leadership has no bearing whatsoever on the global threat that a lunatic with weapons of mass-destruction constitutes to the world at large.
And when did I ever bring up the political party slant of anything? Go back to my post, and actually take the time to read what I said. If you have something other than rants and unsubstantiated claims, come back and we can have a meaningful discussion. As it is, you've contributed very little to this topic, while forcing me to spend a lot of time typing responses to the kind of garbage that too often goes unchallanged.

This thread was relatively civil until just now. Comments like your 'shove it up your ass' and accusing people of slander and whatnot are a surefire way to turn an interesting conversation into a flame-fest. But I guess that's the best some can hope for, when they don't have the facts on their side.

As an aside, I want to say for the record that I have nothing but sympathy and respect for our soldiers in the field. They are doing their jobs, and are doing the best they can to make our country safe and prosperous. I have far less respect for some politicians, but don't lump me in with a perceived group who would abandon our soldiers. This is an imperfect world, and sometimes it's our military might that safeguards us from peril. Like I said before, I supported the action in Kosovo because it was the right thing to do. Just because I question our President's motives, don't doubt my patriotism. I love my country, I love my freedoms. I consider this the greatest nation on earth. I just want truth, logic, and compassion (as opposed to preying on people's fears) to drive our foreign policy decisions.

board Lizard

02-15-2003, 03:09 PM

So, you are a bigot, too? People are people.. as long as they arent hurting anyone else, or breaking any laws, what right do YOU have to judge them?

He has EVERY, let me repeat that: EVERY right to judge them and express his views. What right does he have to do so? It's called the first amendment and it allows him to express his opinions.. just like you have the right to call him a bigot. Way to be ironic. I like how quickly people forget the others have the same rights they do.

I wish Bush 1 had the balls to get the whole job done then

Bush 1 was going to but the Middle Eastern governments begged him not to because it would seriously destabilize Iraq and the entire region at the time. Way to be informed on your world history. Idiot.

As for the weapons... show me proof that he has, or is making those weapons.. can't? Well, thats because we have only been inspecting for a very short period of time...

Actually the proof was in in UN reports from the late 90s in which it was confirmed that Iraq was in possession of VX Gas, Anthrax, and Muster Gas. Iraq itself has admitted to having 3.9 tons of VX Gas. (Don’t believe me? Look it up.) The inspectors are NOT.. I repeat.. NOT there to find the VX gas, they are there to confirm that it has been destroyed, otherwise they would be called scavenger hunters and not inspectors. The only way they can do that is for Iraq to present evidence that this has happened, as of the time I post this they have not. Therefore are in material breech of 1441 and that grants the U.S. the ability to strike. And if your still in doubt I refer you to Blix's last update in which he informed the world that Iraq had rockets that exceeded the allowed limits set forth by the UN, and that is just a quick example.

As Colin Powell said, this is about disarmament.. its not a massive scavenger hunt. Its only a matter of time before these weapons end up in even worse hands and then we are really in trouble. Just look at the N Korea conflict we are having now.. they have Nuclear weapons, why? Because they were allowed to go unchecked for so long (during the Clinton administration I might add) and now negotiations are very difficult because of the bomb. Are we going to allow Saddam to same amount of time to develop it before we stand up and say stop? I hope not or we are really screwed. If your opposed to having our troops fight him now because of fear of losing U.S. soldiers then you should really be scared of having them fight him when he has a nuclear weapon because as soon as he realizes he is going to lose the war he will use every type of weapon at his disposal including a nuclear one if allowed to develop it.

And to those people out there that doubt he wants a nuclear weapon or is unwilling to develop one.. I thank God that not everyone in this world is as naive as you are.

cryptorad

02-15-2003, 03:44 PM

Saddam's own son in law defected.. with proof of several of Saddam's illegal weapons programs. Programs he DEVELOPED.. and progressed WITH UN INSPECTORS IN COUNTRY!!! The UN inspectors were totally oblivious to it. The UN inspectors have always said they can't find anything if Iraq doesn't help them. So you point to an absence of an overwhelming pile of evidence and say that there is no reason because the inspectors found little. Forget any of the other facts and even the fact that the INSPECTORS today are STILL finding things. Not much.. but they are finding them. But the evidence that Iraq is HIDING THINGS.. is undeniable.

Like the rockets he developed that have JUST the right targeting and range to hit Israel. Things they only found because we SPOONFED (one of your favorite terms) the information to the UN inspectors. Hitting Israel with WMD is a claim he HAS made. Fight me.. I'll bomb Israel (in an attempt to involve the whole middle east). Same as N. Korea.. sanction me.. I'll bomb Japan (in an attempt to involve the whole SE asia). See any PATTERNS HERE?? How single minded and partisan do you have to be to ignore evidence like that?

Yeah.. we went into Kuwait cause of OIL bubba.

/sarcasm on
Saddam's invasion, murder and rape of a country didn't have anything to do with it. The UN and the rest of the world ASKING US TO DO IT.. didn't have anything to do with it. It was all about oil. Damn.. we're glad we got that oil back into someone else's hands. BTW.. FRANCE owns alot of the rights to Iraq's oil. They were part of the payment for the nuclear reactor and nuclear training Iraq received from France in the 80's.
/sarcasm off

If you fail to see a pattern after 12 years of historical proof.. then I feel you will never be convinced. Fine.. fortunately.. you are a minority.

Statements that Bush is fixing 'Daddies' mistake are rather an interesting contrast, and a bit of a self made trap, for the nae saying partisan spinners.

Bush 1 wanted nothing more then to go into Baghdad. The UN and much world opinion stopped him from doing it. So.. Bush's mistake was to listen to people who were wrong. IE.. UN and billboard carrying peace protestors. An interesting question is will Bush 2 make the same mistake by listening to the huge noise being created by the same people again 11 years later? I hope not.

It's a bad situation.. but the reality is the reality. Putting your head in the sand and wishing it to go away is not going to work. Nor is it what made this country great .. or bought our freedom. In fact.. it sounds a HELLUVA lot like the way these same countries, and people, treated the Hitler situation. And today these people DARE to put swatiskas on US flags. You cannot imagine how MUCH that pisses me off. Disgracing the memory of thousands of US soldiers buried on European battlefields because the complacency of these same countries led them to TOTAL DOMINATION AND HUMILIATING DEFEAT. And most of them are lining up accusing us of aggression. And remember.. another few months of delay and HITLER woulda been using the bomb too.

I guess most of the Europeans would look good goose stepping around today. They'd probably have lighter hair too and bluer eyes. Think about it for a minute.. a few month delay = Germany wins. I suppose you'd rather see history repeat itself?? Of course this time.. we can actually really see him use Nuke's.. if we just wait a LEEETLE bit longer.

You say there isn't enough evidence for my claim. I counter.. you don't know enough about how these things work to assess the evidence you've been given. Or you haven't informed yourself enough on all of the evidence to effect that opinion. Either way... your path is a dangerous path. I choose not to follow it. Peace at any cost is NOT the best alternative to all situations. I have some professional credentials to back up my claim.

BOrg

02-15-2003, 04:30 PM

It's the economy stupid. There is going to be an invasion of Iraq. President Bush has no choice at this point. The US has deployed troops and that costs money. ( allow me to remind you that there was no income tax in the United States before the Civil War) Bush has cut taxes and that costs money. The economy is in the shitter and the only plunger he can find is more tax cuts, and that costs money. So he has to justify the cost to the american people, who he promised that he wouldn't run the budget in the red unless there were a national emergency or in a time of war. It would seem that he has found both.

high_jeeves

02-15-2003, 05:32 PM

just like you have the right to call him a bigot.

Actually, I call him a bigot, because he is one... from the dictionary:

bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

When your views are such that you beleive that other people dont deserve the same rights you do, I wouldnt start brining to constitution into the discussion...

Way to be informed on your world history. Idiot.

Yay! Way to start with the personal attacks... I can now safely ignore everything you post..

I am quite familiar with my world history.. the countries in the region had concerts about destabalizing the region... just like they did with Afghanistan.. didnt seem to stop us then (which is a good thing..) How about N. Korea? This is a country with Nukes, that we KNOW can reach the west coast and alaska... oh, and they have broken ALL of the weapons proliferation treaties that have had with the US and international community.. but, no oil? no problem!

I dont understand how so many people can talk about the american thing to do, and the patriotic way to act, when with respect to our foriegn policy we throw away one of the things we always throw in the worlds face: democracy. I mean, if we are just going to ignore the UN and NATO when they dont agree with us, isnt it a little hypocrytical of us to expect other countries to abide by their rules?

I think this topic has made me stray a bit from my original point, because of some of the amazing vitriol coming from some people in this discussion. Besides the childish name calling popping up recently, the amount of anger generated here because somebody doesnt agree with you, is somewhat disturbing..

In any case, here is what I said in my first post in this topic:

Is Saddam a bad guy? Hell yeah.

Do I think he should be captured/killed? Hell yeah.

Should we be doing it when large portions of the country and most of world doesnt think so? Arguable..

As you can see, I'm not arguing that we SHOULDNT go after saddam.. I'm arguing that the precedent we set by ignoring the internation organizations that WE use to bully other countries isnt good... I pretty much think that the UN is a waste of time, BUT we cant use it when it suits us, and ignore it when it doesnt.. that makes us nothing but a bunch of hypocrytes...

--Jeeves

TDES

02-15-2003, 07:48 PM

Link to UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

The problem here is that Dubbya went to the UN (unlike BC) and the above resolution was written voted upon 15-0 by the security council. The resolution calls for Iraq to disarm voluntarily or be forced to. Inspections are only to determine if they are. The (by the inspector admissions) they are not. "Sort of" or "Sometimes" were not conditions for the disarmament.

Not even France and Germany argue that S.H. has WMD's, they only argue against force as a means to secure disarmament. If Iraq doesn't have WMD, then Cheney didn't know about Enron.

We didn't use the UN and then get mad when things didn't go our way. We used the UN and then got mad when the some members of the security council wanted to change the rules of 1441. (ironically the same member(s) for whom oil IS the primary concern)

France and Germany should have vetoed the resolution back then.

Instead, now we've shown countries like North Korea (and Iran)you can divide the UN with threat of force issues. There's no point standing up as a group and saying do this or else ... when "else" means appeasement.

People are always going to hate us because we are the strongest (only) superpower. There's no foreign policy that is EVER going to change that..

high_jeeves

02-15-2003, 08:30 PM

There's no point standing up as a group and saying do this or else ... when "else" means appeasement.

So, instead, we should stand up as a group, say "do something or else.. and by the way, we arent gonna give you a chance to prove you did something..."

The inspectors want more time... give them more time, or pass a second resolution which is more specific in terms of time frame... 1441 is extremely vague on timeframe..

My argument has been, and will continue to be, on Iraq, and other foriegn affairs issues, that if we are going to something, it needs to be done right... So many of the recent issues we are having in the middle east are our own doing (We armed and/or trained BOTH of our current major middle east enemies).. Perhaps if we would go about things in a more thoughtful appropriate manner now, and in the future, we would have fewer problems results from them..

People are always going to hate us because we are the strongest (only) superpower. There's no foreign policy that is EVER going to change that..

I actually disagree with this.. but, regardless of my disagreement, do you feel that this is enough of a reason to ignore the fact that people hate us because of some of the decisions we make? Perhaps we should consider giving more thought to how our decisions affect the world, and the future of our own country...

--Jeeves

hhh

02-15-2003, 09:23 PM

What a touchy subject.

If you had seen the things that went on in Kuwait durning the early 90s.....the torture/rape beds/camps.. etc, there is no doubt Saddam is a very mad man. This is human degradation.

Should the starter of such be stopped w/o the approval of the UN and others? Personally, I think so. But this is already years overdue.

The UN really seems to be a joke. They are not showing any muscle, imo. Anyone remember the League of Nations? Our own country was the basically the pioneer of such, and then even we didn't become a member because Congress didn't want it. Great way for them to shoot Wilson down. In the end it made the US look like a joke to the rest of the world.

Unfortunitly this is a view that isn't going to change. Its been said before, but its worth reiterating. The US is in a no-win situation. If we try to help such a situation we are hell-bent on world power and domination, and if we don't help a situation then we are isolationists and self-centric. The grey area in between..its just, well too grey.

My work is such that I speak to lots of people from other countries, and when I have to mention I'm from the US, the amount of resent we get for that simple fact is staggering, an expection to places like maybe Brazil, .au, and the UK.

Im probably a good bit cynical, but the bottom line is nations/rest of the world are going to continue to hate us no matter what we try to do/fix the rest of the world. My opinion is since this is going to be true we should give the world a reason to hate us a lof of the time.

If Iraq ever took a shot at Israel they better prepare for a far worse beatdown than they would ever see from the US. These people don't care what the rest of the world thinks as they have been oppressed from all of their neighbors for their entire existance. The only reason they didn't get leveled in 91 from the Scuds is because we begged them not to :/

The political wars is fine and all because its what keeps this country's government (somewhat) in check, but they really need to put those views aside when we are in times as serious as this and focus on whats best for the COUNTRY and not their PARTY.

Am I the only one that thinks the whole middle east is kind of ucky that the US held itself back and didn't turn the whole area into a nuclear waste dump (save Israel) after 9/11 ?

Do I support Bush? Yes. Did I support Clinton? Yes. In fact, as far as --leading our country-- I think he did a bang up job. As far as other things.. well, has room for improvement.

The rush to war? You can't fight a war (well) in the desert once its summer hot and spring is near......

cryptorad

02-15-2003, 10:30 PM

The inspectors do NOT NEED MORE TIME.

Iraq has to cooperate. And Iraq has had plenty of time.. and plenty of warning.. to do so. Years and years and years.

Again I say.... there are worse paths to take then war. Doing nothing to change the course of the situation (while the danger grows) is one of them. Continued ineffective and largely useless inspections (in the face of a lack of cooperation) I consider as doing nothing to change the course of the situation. That is a worse option then war.

As usual.. we (the US) will pay the price both monetarily .. and in US lives.. to fix this mess that we didn't create. And .. we'll be hated for it every step of the way.

Sorta ironic .. isn't it?

BTW.. it's the economy stupid statement. You need to do some study. "It's the economy stupid" is a Democratic spin statement.. and it doesn't even have evidence to support it.

First, Bush is not stupid. In fact.. so far Bush has been mostly right in every damn thing he's said since taking office. His statements on Iraq and N. Korea have been proven so correct.. it's eerie. He is promoting things in office that I only hoped I'd hear someone say they wanted done someday. Fuel cells have been around a LONG LONG time. Thank god a president finally is funding the price to move them from lab to production. Sure there is more.. and alternatives to what Bush is doing, but overall he is moving in a direction I like. And I could care less if he was Repub or Dem or Independent. I'll gladly elect Jesse Ventura if he does what I think this country needs. At this point though, I generally resist Democratic policies in the high 80 percent bracket. Also, Bush has only been in office for 2 years, and has been a bit preoccupied with the worst crisis we've faced in decades. Don't forget that.

Second, even with this huge budget Bush proposed.. our deficit is trivial. Check budgetary history, do the math.. crush the numbers.. (as percents of totals) and then see how you feel. The democrats want the economy to be perceived as poor and Bush to be perceived as responsible for it. This can get them elected. Typical Democratic playbook play number 10. I've seen it so much.. it's boring. Fact is.. we ARE IN A WAR. Ask the US servicemen who have been being shot, and shot at, this last few months how they feel about it. You'll find it's not a very peaceful place over there. I don't exactly feel our economy is robust as hell.. but we also just found out some of (and most of the largest) of the huge profits and numbers reported from several years ago were all a sham and a lie to inflate stock prices. Those folks are slowly having to start telling the truth.. and the truth doesn't spin as well as the lies they were spewing. Dont' blame Bush for that. In fact.. don't blame anyone for it. But.. applaud those who are fixing it now.. with laws.. and investigations.

Lastly.. mark my words. We are exposing ourselves to be attacked by every two bit hood in the world if we DON"T slap this guy down soon. Most of these people only respect force. Thank god we have some. Now .. if we'd only figure out when to use it, we'd be much better off.

TDES

02-15-2003, 10:59 PM

The inspectors want more time... give them more time, or pass a second resolution which is more specific in terms of time frame... 1441 is extremely vague on timeframe..

Under any other circumstance, I'm with you 100%.

I just don't know what more time gains here, other than war of course. But it's not that simple. This has been a pimple waiting to burst for over a decade. We can let the inspectors play around there for another year. But end game, what do we end up with ? I personally don't think that if tomorrow the inspectors found 20k liters of Anthrax, that all of a sudden we'd have UN consensus. Some would argue that the inspections were working and the others would say this constitutes the material breach specified in 1441. Well, we all should be able to agree that Iraq doesn't want to disarm (and given their situation I don't blame them). But if as a UN we all want them disarmed, I don't believe that can happen without calling the bluff.

I will note that I believe that 1441 was specifically worded to end up in our favor. We knew Sadam wouldn't budge in certain areas that that would give us the material breach (excuse) that we wanted.

My argument has been, and will continue to be, on Iraq, and other foreign affairs issues, that if we are going to something, it needs to be done right... So many of the recent issues we are having in the middle east are our own doing (We armed and/or trained BOTH of our current major middle east enemies).. Perhaps if we would go about things in a more thoughtful appropriate manner now, and in the future, we would have fewer problems results from them..

We did indeed jump in bed with Iraq, but remember the circumstances ... Iran held our hostages, they were the lesser of two evils. History is filled with alliances built solely out of necessity. I'm certainly glad I'm not a politician making these decisions without some sort of crystal ball.

I actually disagree with this.. but, regardless of my disagreement, do you feel that this is enough of a reason to ignore the fact that people hate us because of some of the decisions we make? Perhaps we should consider giving more thought to how our decisions affect the world, and the future of our own country

No ... I don't think we should ignore it. But recognizing that it is inevitable, what else do we do ? It's easy to say that we should consider the rest of the world (not to mention correct).... But the yin and yang of out American arrogance is that our "look before we leap" approach to things has done more to improve the world in the last 200+ years than it has in detriment ... wouldn't you agree ?

It's not meant as an excuse ... we are who we are and time will tell if we pass the test. Ultimately I think we do more good than harm, but world opinion will never favor us regardless.

high_jeeves

02-15-2003, 11:30 PM

Well, we all should be able to agree that Iraq doesn't want to disarm (and given their situation I don't blame them). But if as a UN we all want them disarmed, I don't believe that can happen without calling the bluff.

I totally agree that Iraq probably has not disarmed... I think that MOST of the UN wants to see them disarmed... I think the US wants to see Sadam dead, disarmament or no... I think it is disingenuous of us to sign a resolution which calls for disarmament, when WE have no intention of honoring that resolution... Perhaps the UN is going to be the next league of nations because of our ego, and NOT because of the timidity of other countries, regardless of what gets written in our history books..

We did indeed jump in bed with Iraq, but remember the circumstances ... Iran held our hostages, they were the lesser of two evils. History is filled with alliances built solely out of necessity. I'm certainly glad I'm not a politician making these decisions without some sort of crystal ball.

I agree.. foriegn policy isnt easy, by no means.. we had a particularly bad stretch of policy, where instead of taking care of our own problems, we gave guns and training to other people, and had them do it... that didnt turn out so hot for us... I prefer our more recent policies during Bush 1 and Clinton of direct intervention, I just prefer that they be done right...

To people who say that Clinton was wrong for not getting UN permission to go into Serbia.. that is arguable.. on one hand, he didnt get international permission.. on the other hand, he didnt ask for it, wait to be told no, and then do it anyways.. I guess which of those possibilities is preferred depends on the reader..

But the yin and yang of out American arrogance is that our "look before we leap" approach to things has done more to improve the world in the last 200+ years than it has in detriment ... wouldn't you agree ?

It's not meant as an excuse ... we are who we are and time will tell if we pass the test. Ultimately I think we do more good than harm, but world opinion will never favor us regardless.

I agree, that we have done more good than harm.. no doubt about that.. but didnt the greeks, romans, egyptians, and many (most actually) large civilizations do the same? Wasnt ego the source of the fall of quite a few of these empires?

"He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it." (author unknown)

Perhaps thinking ahead in our dealings with other countries and cultures might benefit us some?

edit: Transposed two words

--Jeeves

outthere

02-16-2003, 12:08 AM

LOL

Why not.

http://www.artbell.com

The Truth will set you free.

board Lizard

02-16-2003, 12:28 AM

Feels good to know that jeeves is an idiot.

futuro

02-16-2003, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by TDES
Link to UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

The problem here is that Dubbya went to the UN (unlike BC) and the above resolution was written voted upon 15-0 by the security council. The resolution calls for Iraq to disarm voluntarily or be forced to. Inspections are only to determine if they are. The (by the inspector admissions) they are not. "Sort of" or "Sometimes" were not conditions for the disarmament.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/0b7116abb4b7e3e9852560e5007688a0!OpenDocument

This is a link to UN SC Resolution 452, from 1979, calling un Isreal to *urgently* stop building settlements in the occupied territories. I notice that we have done *nothing* to enforce this resolution, which arguably is causing much of the trouble in the middle east, that has spread right into the US. Isreal has WMD, and the means to deliver them. They have killed many of their own citizens (palestinians) using bombs and bullets. An increasingly militant government has killed innocent palestinians on a regular basis...

Now, I'm not urging an attack on Isreal, and I'm not anti-semetic at all. I'm just pointing out that when the UN resolution is something the conservative right wants, it's fine, but if it's not, then it's okay to ignore it. And before you say anything, *all* SC resolutions have to have a unanimous vote or abstentions of all the SC members, and must pass the five permanent members who have a veto, of which the US is one.

Not even France and Germany argue that S.H. has WMD's, they only argue against force as a means to secure disarmament. If Iraq doesn't have WMD, then Cheney didn't know about Enron.

Interesting that you would bring up an oil company, isn't it?

We didn't use the UN and then get mad when things didn't go our way. We used the UN and then got mad when the some members of the security council wanted to change the rules of 1441. (ironically the same member(s) for whom oil IS the primary concern)

Oh, sure we do.
Look, there was just unprecedently huge demonstrations today all across the world protesting Bush's war. Some of the citizens of the very countries that support us are totally against Bush's war. Our motivations are being questioned all over the world. Doesn't that ring a bell with you? Doesn't that strike you as something to think about, that literally tens of millions of people turned out to protest a potential war, many in places with freezing cold weather? Doesn't it strike you as funny that *no* people turned out to support Bush's war?

France and Germany should have vetoed the resolution back then.

Threats from the US were enough to stop that possibility, weren't they?

Instead, now we've shown countries like North Korea (and Iran)you can divide the UN with threat of force issues. There's no point standing up as a group and saying do this or else ... when "else" means appeasement.

If there was credible evidence that Saddam was really trying to use these weapons in any way other than self-defense, than you might have a point. However, he hasn't since he was spanked down in the Gulf War.

People are always going to hate us because we are the strongest (only) superpower. There's no foreign policy that is EVER going to change that..

No, sorry. People hate us when we use our military and economic power to bully the rest of the world. There's plenty of foreign policy that can change that.

I always laugh when I hear "They hate our freedom". What a joke. No, they hate our goverment's meat-handed foreign policy, at least under this president.

futuro

02-16-2003, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by board Lizard
Feels good to know that jeeves is an idiot.

Far be it for me to defend Jeeves (he's quite capable of doing it himself), but he's posted some interesting, thoughtful and factual articles in this thread.

And all you can come up with is calling him names?

I don't want to get invovled in a flame war on such an important issue, but I can't help myself asking you this question : Do you regret leaving school after the eighth grade?

high_jeeves

02-16-2003, 08:44 AM

Feels good to know that jeeves is an idiot.

Thank you for your extremely open minded, highly educated, insightful participation in this dicsussion... Its never a good political discussion until one parties vitriol and bias finally boils over to nothing more than a one-line post which does nothing but call names... Do us all a favor, and leave the discussion to even-minded adults, you clearly dont have the mental capacity to enter into a discussion on this level, if you cant help but resort to name calling...

I want to thank the people that have made this thread interesting to discuss... TDES in particular seems to have an excellent view, and ability to discuss high level geopolitics (NOTE: he doesnt agree with me, but atleast he can post without seemingly frothing at the mouth...). I would appreciate a post from the rest of the members of this thread asking "board Lizard" to just go away, so we can keep this thread as civil as it was before he joined the discussion..

--Jeeves

Mr. Suspicious

02-16-2003, 09:16 AM

I would appreciate a post from the rest of the members of this thread asking "board Lizard" to just go away, so we can keep this thread as civil as it was before he joined the discussion..

A quick lookup on the previous posts by Mr. Board Lizard shows his intellectual capabilities quite clearly. His kind of bread is best ignored and not encouraged to stay.

Click "Profile" on one of his posts, Click "Add board Lizard to Your Ignore List", presto.

board Lizard

02-16-2003, 10:22 AM

you are wrong.

Ekin

02-17-2003, 01:08 AM

NO WAR !

This generation of US government suck . Screw up enconomy , and sending our boys to death.

Lyroschen

02-17-2003, 03:42 AM

Edit: Jeeves fixed his post, so this one is obsolete.

high_jeeves

02-17-2003, 08:42 AM

Lol.. so, I went back and fixed my typo...

--Jeeves

Borscht

02-17-2003, 05:01 PM

The fact that dealing with Jeeve's particular form of idiocy would take several pages, it's just more efficient sometimes to say it straight. As Board Lizard has done.

Jeeve's is a classic modern liberal, and proceeds with the psuedo-erudition and arrogance that is rapidly destroying the political party and various movements who share his views.

I would like to thank the individual who pointed out the way I can forever be spared Jeeve's posts both here and in every other forum.

Whatever the appeasers in this forum may say, the forces of appeasement have lost. As did the Neville Chamberlain forces of appeasement in WW2. And the usual suspects of appeasement prior to the Gulf War.

So get over it. The war is coming, it's a just war, Iraq will fall. Suck it up and move on. You lose, and rightly so.

As the war is executed, the Iraqi qulags will be opened and the atrocities publicized worldwide. His tactics of slash-and-burn will no doubt be repeated as they were in Kuwait, as he destroys his own people's property in retreat.

Our "wise and erudite" appeasers will simply ignore all that, spared through ignorance the necessity of self-reflection and mea culpa. They will slink on to appease the next tyrant, and excuse the next horrible wickedness that comes along.

There will always exist cowards and appeasers. In America those folks mostly embrace the liberal mantra, and vote with the Democrat party. The sign of their cowardice is that they often don't acurately call themselves liberal, but live under the banner of "Independent", or "Moderate".

high_jeeves

02-17-2003, 05:50 PM

So, anyone want to actually post any sort of fact, or information to support thier views? Or has this thread devolved to zealotous propoganda, and childish name calling?

--Jeeves

board Lizard

02-17-2003, 06:06 PM

hahahahahahahah jeeves got owned.

just like all those times in his room when his dad would come home after a late night of drinking.

Circles

02-17-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Ratt

Why not? Got something better to do?

This goes for everyone, though... if you're gonna post here, you have to be mildly intelligent. That includes the use of proper grammar, punctuation, spelling and capitalization. This l33t scr1pt kiddie bullshit isn't gonna fly. Go talk l33t somewhere else.

I promise not to talk l33t kiddie shit, I cant however, spell, punctuate, of capitalize very well, i guess im fucked :)

dyslexia is a bitch

Circles

02-17-2003, 06:31 PM

one thing:

nuke em till they glow, and shoot em in the dark.

why?
Because they fucked with the US, and thats enough reason.

we are not "bullys" we are cops. When the shit hits the fan, people call us. when a million people starve to a dictator that is a minor functinary of hell, the US ships food. When the entire globe's economy tanks, we Bail it out.

We do stick our noses in, we protect our intrests. we OWN large portions of the world. Not its land, but teh governments and the economys on that land. We have american companies that have entered into lagitimate contracts with foriegn powers, and we will enforce them, and protect there intrests.

we are not going to war for oil. France and Germany, the two largest purchasers of Iraq sanctioned oil are trying to prevent that supply being cut off.

we are going to war to stop a threat. Threat you see, are MUCH WORSE to the economys then both war and peace. when there is a threat of war, economys are depressed. people live with fear and doubt. they buy less, then consume less, their performance goes down. this is the last thing you want... some UN "inspection" to drag on and on for months.

What bush should have done is what we have done in the past: kill them all, THEN call the UN to send in peace keeping forces and humanitarian forces. These two things it does well.

Iam_Walrus

02-18-2003, 09:54 PM

Ahh... I shouldn't have taken the weekend off, I see that the faggoty liberals are incensed?

I'm a biggot for being against special rights for sexuality? So are you a biggot for being against heterosexual rights? I thought this was the age of equal opportunity? If homosexuals are given special considerations, I demand that heterosexuals be given equitable special considerations.

Who's the biggot?

Proof? There's no amount of proof that anyone could offer you, jeeves, to change your brainwashed, liberal, anti-American mind. The documented physical evidence that the lying bastard Colin Powell stated was apparently not good enough, so what point is there in linking websites or news articles? This is simply another case of you being right when everyone else is wrong.

And to think I was speaking to bubba and you're the one that freaked out.

Must have hit too close to home...

high_jeeves

02-18-2003, 10:17 PM

Well, you are a bigot, if you dont think that gay people deserve the SAME rights as anyone else in the country.. currently, they do not.. so, being against gay rights, is claiming that certain people do not deserve the same freedoms as other people... Not very american of you, now is it?

As for Colin Powell, his physical evidence stated that terrorists were in Iraq, and that there were cells, and training camps there... I'm sure there are.. I'm sure there are also some in Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc... we have also found them in Spain, Germany, England, America, etc... From there, Powell stated that there is no way these camps could exists without the knowledge of the Iraqi government... if he has proof that there is a high-level connection, he didnt share is last week when he gave his presentation.

liberal, anti-American mind

This is always the war-cry of the hard core, rightwingers when war talk comes around... If you dont agree with me, you are not american... when we observe that sentiment, we immediatly see who the real Americans are... In the America I grew up in, and I was tought, everyone has a right to their opinion, and we respect eachothers opinions as just that... diverse opinions.. Seems to me that diversity of opinion is totally antithisis to you, and your ilk.. perhaps you would be better off living in a country with a dictator that won by 100% of the vote every election? At least that way, you could be sure that nobody voiced an opinion that was not yours...

This is simply another case of you being right when everyone else is wrong.

I never said I was right, and everyone else was wrong.. as a matter of fact, YOU are the one who is making this statement.. I am expressing my opinion, backing it with facts... I am STILL waiting from somebody who disagrees with me to present their OPINION, and back it up with facts.. so far, all I have seen is anger, belittlement, and propaganda... if you are the embodyment patriot, and a true american, with your intolerance of other beliefs and opinions, and absolute lack of ability to argue a point with anything other than agry words, then this country is doomed...

--Jeeves

Ekin

02-18-2003, 10:48 PM

Because they fucked with the US, and thats enough reason.

I am not american . I won't agree on this . They fucked with the US because US did fucked with them.

Also , Many people around the world don't think US is a cop . What we do think US is a theft , rogue . What US doing right now is fighting for the oil . Trying to control whole world economy .

Who is the dicator ? Billion of people against war . Did US government hear ?

board Lizard

02-18-2003, 11:10 PM

Lol Billions of people against the war? I think not.

and
so, being against gay rights, is claiming that certain people do not deserve the same freedoms as other people

Homosexuality is a genetic defect. Not to sound evil or anything, but rather be more of a realist. Think about it, why would a species try and cause itself to not be attracted to the opposite sex and thereby canceling out reproduction? By doing that it would be going against millions of years of evolution. It was just a random genetic mutation which at the end of the day is defective. And there is no way you can argue against that.

high_jeeves

02-18-2003, 11:19 PM

It was just a random genetic mutation which at the end of the day is defective. And there is no way you can argue against that.

Actually, that is not true, since there is currently no scientific evidence that states that homosexuality is genetic. In addition, there are quite a few homosexuals in this world who have/do bear children... So, your argument is false. Homosexuality has been in existance for thousands of years, AND is prevelant in the animal kindgom.. so, unless homosexuality is a genetic mutation in MOST species on the planet (by the nature of mutation, the chances of this are extremely small), there is more to it than that.

Your argument is totally besides the point anyways.. they are people.. they deserve the same rights as ALL other people (atleast according to that silly little thing, called a constitution).

Lol Billions of people against the war? I think not.

Once again.. think first, type second.. there are billions of people in the world against this war.. As of 1999 the world had more than 6 billion people in it.. I would bet that atleast 1/6th of the people on this planet do not agree with this war... Most of Europe, Most of Russia, Most of the Middle East, and even half of the US...

--Jeeves

board Lizard

02-19-2003, 12:37 AM

I thought you said you were no longer going to respond to my comments

high_jeeves

02-19-2003, 12:40 AM

I thought you said you were no longer going to respond to my comments

Well, that shows just how poor your reading comprehension skills are then...

--Jeeves

addicted.to.eq

02-19-2003, 09:15 AM

First of all:

To discuss a thread like some of you do, especially giving names to others and taunt them, is a sign of missing intelligence in my eyes. Or, in other words, if you ar lacking in arguments, why you don't be quiet and let other opinions be guilty?

I am german, and i feel very amused about the proud some of you show about your right to say what you think and about your freedom on the one side, but don't accept other opinions on the other side. I am not talking about Iraq or Saddam Hussein, i am talking about the reacts of some posts here.
Listen, i learned in my life that your personal freedom ends at the point, where the freedom of someone other starts. Would be worth to think about it the next time you try to taunt someone here.

It is very interesting to see arguments like "we have the weapons, we decide who dies." Look to your own country, look at the children, running through your streets with guns, shooting each other. Look at your racism problems, still there. And than tell me something about the right to judge someone only when he has an other opinion than you? Funny. Again, talking about judging someones post, not Iraq.

Originally posted by board Lizard
Homosexuality is a genetic defect. Not to sound evil or anything, but rather be more of a realist. you can argue against that.

You are wrong here, board Lizard. Homosexuality is implemented during the first 6 weeks of pregnance, by the mother's hormon production. It is as simple as that. Try to check this out by yourself, you can find books about this theme. And it is also wrong that Homosexuality can be inherited.
And to Iam_Walrus: think about it, you have a wife, she gets pregnant, you become a baby. And than one day you have to realize this child is homosexual. What now? Surprise? Different situation because now it is YOUR own problem?

And just another important point: Don't make the mistake to listen to your own medias only, shall it be televison or newspaper. Try to get information from outside the U.S., and you will be astonished how much you DO NOT know about the things happen in the whole world. Europeans fear the U.S cause of their arrogant and bigheaded behaviour. You , the U.S, are the world might number one. Sure. So you have the right to do whatever you want? No. More than this you have the heavy responsibility to use this great might wisely, be a paradigm, not the big bully, playing with muscels and strike everyone down who is not your opinion.

I know, this is more than off topic, but as you, i also have the right to tell you my opinion, right?

And excuse me for my bad english, it is not my nature language.

cryptorad

02-19-2003, 10:20 AM

Half the US is not against the war. There are those who claim those numbers.. and they are wrong. I've recently seen national polls with numbers as high as 83% who say it's time for Saddam to be taken out. And.. if you were simply living in good ole normal America (not Greenwich village or Hollywood) then you'd realize that's exactly where the sentiment is. Bush isn't doing this because he's a cowboy. He's doing it because WE WANT HIM TO! And we don't go to marches in downtown Washington or New York. We leave that to the professionals who do it all the time.. which is why we ignore them usually. ;)

Here's an interesting question though.. How many people who are actually THREATENED by Iraq are for a war against him??

Maybe you should be paying attention to THAT percentage, as it carries more weight in determining the need or desire for war. Rather then the complaints of those who have no risk associated with the consequences of their opinions.

There are tons of people chiming in with their opinions on the need for a war who have absolutely NO relationship, good or bad, in the scenario. And almost ALL of those folks say No. And even at that.. you can only muster less then half the countries voting no. Of course.. some of those voting no are certainly making ALOT of noise. France is quickly becoming very unpopular with even Europe, they've been so vocal. Seems normal and reasonable to me.

The war protestors managed to generate quite a few numbers in some countries. Still.. they were NOT a majority in most of those countries. They stage the protests in the MOST liberal cities they can find hoping they get enough numbers to have some effect.

And... the protests DID have some effect. And now another delay is occuring because of them. Still, they are NOT the majority, and the probability of war continues. Not because of our opinion.. not because of the protestors opinion.. not because we need more oil.. but BECAUSE SADDAM REFUSES TO STOP!

WHY do we have to keep losing sight of this??

/sarcasm
Oh.. that's right... because then the War would be the right thing to do and THAT CAN NEVER BE so let's ignore it.
/sarcasm off

That seems to be the way it plays out. Delays .. are increasing the danger daily of an expanded war. EXACTLY what the protestors say they don't want. If they were smart.. IF.. they were as savvy as they claim.. they'd SUPPORT action against Iraq. NO ONE can say Saddam doesn't deserve this, only that he doesn't deserve it YET. How ridiculous is it to increase the danger for everyone over something like that. IF there was support for the obvious then Saddam would see world unity and it's possible he would leave on his own without any war. If he didn't.. then he would be taken out so fast.. and so surely.. there would be no danger of expansion of this war.

If there was support for it.. then we'd take him out. And we'd go home. But of course.. there are those who say 'no you won't'.. you'll instill your OWN government. Funny how Germany and France don't seem to be 'our' government today. Those are both countries we had to march armies into. TWICE .. in fact. And there are lots of other examples of what happens when we march in. Those countries are the BEST countries in the world today. Most succesful.. most desirious to live in.. and the ONES MAKING THE MOST NOISE NOW!! HOW fucking ironic IS THAT?

But.. alas.. the dissension continues. And that continues to inflame this into a likely full blown conflict that may involve everyone. God knows where it will end then. Has anyone ever thought about what happens if they actually DO force the US into a corner? And force the US to fight for it's survival? That's a terrifying thought to me, because.. our rapid destruction of Iraq's '3rd largest standing army in the world' in 72 hours was no accident. Everyone cried "no.. don't.. stop" back then too. Everyone predicted the US would fail.. that we'd be destroyed.. that we'd be sorry. We were sorry we didn't finish the job. And that was because we listened to liberals.... Ayep.. it was a mistake alright.

How can liberals call themselves smart when they create political situations like that? Is it simply because they can't stand to EVER compromise?? They can't stand to EVER lose a compromise?? I think so.. personally.

board Lizard

02-19-2003, 10:55 AM

Posted by Jeeves on page 3

Yay! Way to start with the personal attacks... I can now safely ignore everything you post..

Posted by Jeeves on page 5

Well, that shows just how poor your reading comprehension skills are then...

Durrrrrrrrrrr. Idiot. Way to remember things you posted 2 pages back, I guess your homogenes are to blame.

think about it, you have a wife, she gets pregnant, you become a baby. And than one day you have to realize this child is homosexual. What now? Surprise? Different situation because now it is YOUR own problem?

I'd beat it back to being straight.

high_jeeves

02-19-2003, 10:55 AM

Half the US is not against the war. There are those who claim those numbers.. and they are wrong. I've recently seen national polls with numbers as high as 83% who say it's time for Saddam to be taken out.

Please quote your source... I think you might be misreading the poll... As I posted before, A CNN-Gallup poll on Feb. 9th showed the following numbers:

Is war inevitable:
75% - Yes
20% - No

Bush moving to quickly towards war:
52% - No
46% - Yes

Iraq poses an immediate threat:
39% - Yes
47% - No immediate threat
13% - No threat at all

As you can see by these numbers, half the country CLEARLY doesnt want us to go to war right now, and OVER half the country doesnt see saddam as an immediate threat.

As for international views:

France: (Poll on Jan 23rd)

76% oppose war (compared to 14% who were against the Gulf War in 1991)

Great Britian: (Feb 16th)

52% - Opposed to war
29% - Pro war

In Great Britian, recent polls ranked countries by how much they threaten the world.

Rankings:

1) US
2) N. Korea
3) Iraq

So, as you can see, the supposition that the international community, and our own country is not against the war, is just not true..

And.. if you were simply living in good ole normal America (not Greenwich village or Hollywood) then you'd realize that's exactly where the sentiment is

I live in Austin, TX... not exactly the democratic capitol of the world.. yet, atleast half of my friends and neighbors are against the war.. many of them are even tried and true republicans.

but BECAUSE SADDAM REFUSES TO STOP!

Stop doing what? He hasnt done anything that we can prove for 10 years now... maybe we should wait until we can prove he is actually doing something, before we kill him?

Those are both countries we had to march armies into. TWICE .. in fact. And there are lots of other examples of what happens when we march in. Those countries are the BEST countries in the world today. Most succesful.. most desirious to live in.. and the ONES MAKING THE MOST NOISE NOW!! HOW fucking ironic IS THAT?

That was 50+ years ago... I fail to see the irony, the people are totally different, the world climate is totally different... I mean, the Romans took over Greece about 2000 years ago.. isnt it ironic that I still like athens better than rome?

Everyone cried "no.. don't.. stop" back then too. Everyone predicted the US would fail.. that we'd be destroyed.. that we'd be sorry. We were sorry we didn't finish the job. And that was because we listened to liberals.... Ayep.. it was a mistake alright.

Once again.. show me some facts... polling from 1991 shows that again, you are speaking of revisionist history here:

During the war, we saw the following numbers when asked:

"Do you agree with the decision to begin the ground war, do you think we should not have begun it, or do you think we should have begun it sooner? "

We see the following results:

60% - Start now
20% - Start sooner
14% - Not start

So, 80% of the country was for the first war. That includes quite a few of these evil super-villians you refer to as "liberals".

Some additional polls that you might find interesting:

How long should the US keep fighting?

U.S. troops should keep fighting until Iraq withdraws from Kuwait.
Agree 92%
Disagree 6%

U.S. troops should keep fighting until Iraq's military capability is destroyed.
Agree 77%
Disagree 18%

U.S. troops should beep fighting until Saddam Hussein is removed from power.
Agree 75%
Disagree 21%

So, as you can see, 75% of the country thought we should KEEP GOING! Why did we stop? We freed up our oil...

How can liberals call themselves smart when they create political situations like that? Is it simply because they can't stand to EVER compromise?? They can't stand to EVER lose a compromise?? I think so.. personally.

I dont know.. I havnt seen here, or in the news any liberals running around calling conservatives all morons and saying they should all be killed... yet I hear that here and in the news.. perhaps the conservatives are the ones who are unable to see multiple sides of an issue and compromise... So far, all I'm seeing from conservatives here, is an uncanny ability to make up facts such that it seems like the entire world is on their side...

--Jeeves

board Lizard

02-19-2003, 10:56 AM

the previous poster is an idiot

high_jeeves

02-19-2003, 10:58 AM

Posted by Jeeves on page 3

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yay! Way to start with the personal attacks... I can now safely ignore everything you post..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Jeeves on page 5

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that shows just how poor your reading comprehension skills are then...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Durrrrrrrrrrr. Idiot. Way to remember things you posted 2 pages back, I guess your homogenes are to blame.

Again, I simply state that your reading comprehension skills are very poor... Ignoring what you say is not the same as not reading or responding to your posts... it simply means that I understand that your opinion comes from an absolute lack of intelligence (as you have repeatedly proven over, and over again)...

I'd beat it back to being straight.

When you go to prison, bubba's gonna love you.. they always like making child-abusers their wives...

--Jeeves

board Lizard

02-19-2003, 11:04 AM

ignore

\Ig*nore"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Ignored; p. pr. & vb. n. Ignoring.] [L. ignorare; pref. in- not + the root of gnarus knowing, noscere to become acquainted with. See Know, and cf. Narrate.] 1. To be ignorant of or not acquainted with. [Archaic]

Philosophy would solidly be established, if men would more carefully distinguish those things that they know from those that they ignore. --Boyle.

To refuse to take notice of; to shut the eyes to; not to recognize; to disregard willfully and causelessly; as, to ignore certain facts; to ignore the presence of an objectionable person.

Durrrrr. My name is Jeeves and I'm a retard.

high_jeeves

02-19-2003, 11:08 AM

Um... again.. work on reading comprehension.. there are a number of definitions given.. one is:

to ignore the presence of an objectionable person.

another is

to disregard

on dictionary.com, you can also find:

give little attention or respect to

If you are a representation of american youth, we are in more trouble than i ever imagined...

--Jeeves

board Lizard

02-19-2003, 11:14 AM

disregard

\Dis`re*gard"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Disregarded; p. pr. & vb. n. Disregarding.] Not to regard; to pay no heed to; to omit to take notice of; to neglect to observe; to slight as unworthy of regard or notice; as, to disregard the admonitions of conscience.

n 1: lack of care and attention 2: letting pass without notice

v 1: refuse to acknowledge; 2: bar from attention or consideration

To refuse to acknowledge.. hmm.. letting pass without notice.. hmm.. lack of car and attention.. hmm.. bar from attention or consideration.. hmm

Doesn't seem like any of the things you're doing with me now does it, tardy?

high_jeeves

02-19-2003, 11:16 AM

lack of care

Seems exactly like it to me... again.. keep working on reading comprehension...

--Jeeves

board Lizard

02-19-2003, 11:20 AM

Yeah and you keep saying that you don't care, or are going to ignore me, or even disregard me yet you just keep on responding don’t you. Pretty hypocritical isn't it?

I'm glad you do care.

high_jeeves

02-19-2003, 11:24 AM

Yeah and you keep saying that you don't care, or are going to ignore me, or even disregard me yet you just keep on responding don’t you. Pretty hypocritical isn't it?

I'm glad you do care.

You seem to mistake me continuing the conversation to mean I care.. I dont.. I continue it, because I get a good belly laugh every time you reply.. I think everyone else here does too... I continue my conversation with you so that we can get some comedy here on these boards...

keep going, we all wait to hear what kind of rediculous foibles will come out of your mouth next...

--Jeeves

board Lizard

02-19-2003, 11:28 AM

You cared again.

Iam_Walrus

02-19-2003, 12:02 PM

Well, jeeves, if being against special rights that the rest of the community does not share makes me a bigot, then doesn't your refusal to accept reality make you one as well - at least according to your own dictionary posting it does. Right? You speak english, do you not? Pot, this is kettle calling...

Here's a small dose of reality for you to deny, defame, whatever it is that people like you do:

"Baghdad must provide answers to specific questions such as the fate of banned weapons it previously admitted having."

From the article here: http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/reutersnews.broadband.att/;dcopt=ist;pos=skyscraper1;sz=120x600;tile=1;ord=2 1335?

Here is where jeeves denounces the news as a poor source of information...

Iraq is in violation - that is not an arguable fact. It's own countrymen have admitted to it before the immediate threat of military force changed their tune. Now, they pander to the idiot crowd of the world with their "woe is me, I'm so innocent" propaganda.

Here's another link for you, jeeves. This book details your mindset. Maybe it will set you free? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261391/qid=1045677710/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-5440058-9461622?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

high_jeeves

02-19-2003, 12:06 PM

Well, jeeves, if being against special rights that the rest of the community does not share makes me a bigot, then doesn't your refusal to accept reality make you one as well - at least according to your own dictionary posting it does. Right? You speak english, do you not? Pot, this is kettle calling...

I'm talking about EQUAL rights.. currently, they do NOT have the same rights as straight people...

"Baghdad must provide answers to specific questions such as the fate of banned weapons it previously admitted having."

From the article here: http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/reute...d=2
1335?

I fail to see this quote on the travelocity ad that you linked to..

Here's another link for you, jeeves. This book details your mindset. Maybe it will set you free? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846

Once again, how am I supposed to take any argument you make seriously? Your viewpoint is that if I dont agree with you, or your party, I am an idiot.. You will find this viewpoint heavily agreed with in most dictatorships, monarchies, and communist countries... you should considering going to live in one of them, since you clearly dont have what it takes to be an american.

--Jeeves

Cryonic

02-19-2003, 12:59 PM

I'm trying to remember the name of the host of this mornings radio show (plays on something like AM550 here). The host (a conservative like Rush Limbaugh if that helps anyone name him) was talking about the fact that FIVE YEARS ago, the UN General Secretary went to Iraq and spoke with Hussein. He was apparently issued a warning that this would be that last time he was warned to disarm or face the consequences. If this is true (and no I haven't tried to verify the information), then it seems like the UN really doesn't want to do anything more than talk and complain about the situation.

As for being an American. If I think someones an idiot for having a viewpoint (not that I'm pointing my finger at anyone here), then I am completely in my right to have and voice that opinion. Whether anyone else likes or agrees with it is besides the point. Thankfully the 1st amendment isn't about protecting the speach that people like, it's about protecting the opinions that people don't like. Example, the KKK or Neo-Nazis. While I don't agree with them, they are still allowed to have their opinion as long as it doesn't cause harm to others (e.g. Lynching someone for the color of their skin).

hhh

02-19-2003, 01:22 PM

board Lizard ... you really should just quit posting heh your making yourself look worse each time you do, and admittingly some of the times I didn't think that was possible.

>In Great Britian, recent polls ranked countries by how much they threaten the world.

Rankings:

1) US
2) N. Korea
3) Iraq
<

As a basis we can consider GB a gauge for the European community, I'm just generalizing here, but is it possible that they would see the US as the major threat because Europe is behind Arafat and the Pallys instead of Israel and the US? Conflict of interest?

I think a lot of these countries problem (I'm speaking mainly the Middle East and Asia now), and I'm speaking about the resent to the US -- is due to just plain envy.

The list of countries that get aid from the US is endless. We try to help everyone build an economy like we have, and then it fails. We help Israel and they have success at it, and everyone hates them too.

Jealously is the root of all evil.

board Lizard

02-19-2003, 01:47 PM

All the aint-war movements are based on islamic fundamentalism, arabism (arab nazisim, ideology of egypt, syria, the PLO and iraq), anti-semitism towards israel and stupid hypocritical pacifism

and being told i'm making myself look worse each time i post by a guy named 'hhh' is funny. i'll take it you're a wrestling fan you fruit. yeah, nothing beats naming yourself after a wrestler and then trying to flame someone else. come back when you have more "game", pun intended.

Iam_Walrus

02-19-2003, 03:28 PM

Your statements on homosexuality (and I find it amazing you keep harping on this subject in a thread about the war in Iraq issue) smack of what the homosexuals themselves state. Look, I could care less that you're gay - that's your business. But you really need to quit with the tired rhetoric. Homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals - they have more. Examples:

- Name the law that protects the heterosexual from being denied employment based upon sexual preference?
- Name the law that guarantees the heterosexual medical benefits regardless of ability to pay/employment.
- Name the law that protects the heterosexual from being denied housing based upon sexual preference?

You can't name those laws - they don't exists. So what is to stop a homosexual business owner from not hiring the heterosexual based upon sexual preference? The same goes for the homosexual property owner. Nothing? Bingo!

Homosexuals do not fit any category of "suspect class" for the status of a minority or disenfranchised class. Unfortunately, the sense of entitlement that is so rampant in America these days panders to the cry of the self-proclaimed "discriminated" classes that just don't exist. You want the real class of individual getting the shaft in America these days? It's the white male age 18 to 49. And before you start with more of your bullshit, jeeves, I'm hispanic...

As for the link not working, sorry about the redirect. Try this: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2251675
(Behold the power of SEARCH!).

How can you take anything I say seriously? It's obvious you can't take anything based upon fact - even facts supplied to you daily by even the most liberal of media organizations, the AP. Instead of focusing upon Iraq, you've concentrated on the emotional aspect of your sexuality because I stated I'm an opponent of special rights for homosexuals. You can't think objectively and are easily incensed when you feel someone treads upon your world of self-entitlement.

You really should read that book, though. Hey, it was written by a woman, not a pro-oil, war-mongering, right-wing tryant, gay-bashing white male.

Get over it, dude.

board Lizard

02-19-2003, 04:01 PM

I love how fags, er homosexuals always try and call you a bigot when you don't believe 100% in what they do. Not matter what the topic they will always resort to calling you close minded if you don't agree with them.

And to tell you the truth I really don't have a problem with homosexuals either, as long as they don't talk to me.

Iam_Walrus

02-19-2003, 04:24 PM

Just because I don't agree with the lifestyle doesn't mean I feel the need to denigrate them. I don't care for the lifestyle, I don't care for the attitude, and I don't agree that they deserve or require special considerations. I'll still prefer to call the people that choose that lifestyle homosexuals instead of some of the more colorful metaphores. In the end, whether we like them or not, we need to live among them and I would rather have casual indifference much the same as I would to a wife beater. It's possible to have a friendly demeanor towards anyone as long as everyone keeps their freaking mouth shut to crap labels like faggot, dyke, kike, spic and nigger. That accomplishes nothing more than fomenting an already uncomfortable situation.

I don't feel that arguing the point/counter-point of "gay (special) rights" is a bad thing. It's needed, IMHO, as a social check and balance to what is becoming a more vocal problem. As I see it, the special interest groups are taking the lion's share of attention and budget away from what is truly important: education, care for the elderly, national defense and domestic/economic growth. I find the campaigns of the special interests about as abhorrent as the perversion of Roosevelt's "welfare" system. What started out as a good thing for all has become the haven of the lazy and the self-entitled. The demand of "gimme, gimme, gimme" has overthrown the initial need.

It's ok for you to not like homosexuals much as they don't like you - but keep the derogatory out of it. If you want to call jeeves a "fucking idiot," do so based not upon his race/religion/age/gender/sexual orientation, do it because he's simply a "fucking idiot."

high_jeeves

02-19-2003, 04:27 PM

Your statements on homosexuality (and I find it amazing you keep harping on this subject in a thread about the war in Iraq issue) smack of what the homosexuals themselves state. Look, I could care less that you're gay - that's your business. But you really need to quit with the tired rhetoric. Homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals - they have more. Examples:

- Name the law that protects the heterosexual from being denied employment based upon sexual preference?
- Name the law that guarantees the heterosexual medical benefits regardless of ability to pay/employment.
- Name the law that protects the heterosexual from being denied housing based upon sexual preference?

You can't name those laws - they don't exists. So what is to stop a homosexual business owner from not hiring the heterosexual based upon sexual preference? The same goes for the homosexual property owner. Nothing? Bingo!

Well, actually, you are the one that keeps bringing up the homosexuality issue.... All of my posts have been in response to yours.

All of those laws protect bias BASED ON SEXUAL PREFERENCE.. that goes both ways... If somebody is not hired because they are straight, they have the right to sue, under the exact same laws... Its just like laws that protect based on sex, and color... there are suits that have been won based on these laws by men, and whites.. the laws protect from all directions.

Some things that homosexuals cannot do in our "free" country:

1) Openly serve in the military (admitting to being gay will get you dismissed).

2) Have any legal relationship status... I'm not talking religious status, I'm talking about spousal priveleges, whether they be related to taxes, healthcare, privacy, property rights..

3) In many states, sodomy is illegal... that kinda puts a damper on the gay sex life..

As for the article.. it is an interesting article about an interview with Colon Powell, and a bit about Chirac... it doesnt have any fact in it at all, just the opinion of these two peopole..

How can you take anything I say seriously? It's obvious you can't take anything based upon fact - even facts supplied to you daily by even the most liberal of media organizations, the AP.

I'm still waiting for you to post some of those facts...

As for me brining up sexuality, I havnt started a conversation on it once... if you dont want to talk about it, then dont post about it and complain when I respond..

--Jeeves

high_jeeves

02-19-2003, 04:31 PM

It's ok for you to not like homosexuals much as they don't like you - but keep the derogatory out of it. If you want to call jeeves a "fucking idiot," do so based not upon his race/religion/age/gender/sexual orientation, do it because he's simply a "fucking idiot."

Wow, I almost thought you were going to get through a whole post without personally insulting somebody for the sole reason that they dont agree with you... Unless I woke up this morning in the happy WALRUS_LAND I have been reading so much about in this thread, I have every right to have my own opinion, and not be derided for it...

I'm done with this thread, there is obvisouly no point in continuing, since the only two choices are, agree with Iam_Walrus, or get made fun of for not agreeing with him.. I would hate to see the circle of people you hang out with in real life.. they must all be EXACTLY like you, since you clearly cant handle any difference of opinion without falling to the level of calling people names...

--Jeeves

Iam_Walrus

02-19-2003, 05:22 PM

Wow, I almost thought you were going to get through a whole post without personally insulting somebody for the sole reason that they dont agree with you...

I fail to see how your idiocy has anything to do with whether you agree with me or not?

quote:

I am whole-heartedly against "gay rights"

So, you are a bigot, too? People are people.. as long as they arent hurting anyone else, or breaking any laws, what right do YOU have to judge them?

You claim you've not started a conversation on it once, but what's the above? You slandered me (sic. "bigot") because I don't agree with your views, yet I am the one bringing personal attacks into each post? In a wholely logical perspective, you're quite the hypocrite. In the vernacular, that translates for many to "fucking idiot." Hence, my opinion of you comes wholely from what I have viewed of your circular arguments, not from whether you agree with me or not.

You do make a good argument to the laws concerning sexual orientation. For a thorough argument, I would have to index federal statutes versus state's implementations. The laws in the State of California specifically state preference to homosexuals, but lacking the desire to go through the state's Code, I can't provide concrete examples.

Funny you brought up sodomy laws, almost every state outlaws oral sex, for example, under the same statute. Puts a damper on anyone's fun. Personally, I don't feel bad for male homosexuals in that instance. Honestly, the laws are in their benefit. The risk of infection that anal sex provides is hampered by the illegality of the act (like it's really enforced). Guess that's the price of running the gauntlet of going in through the out door.

It's nice to hear you claim you'll stop responding, but considering that you've already interjected time and again after making that statement, I don't have any real hope that you'll shut your piehole.

Coming back to the initial point, Hussein is still a megalomaniac that has proven time and again he will not use his military might appropriately, he will not be honest, he will not abide by the edicts of the United Nations, and he will kill Americans and Jews at first opportunity. He needs to be removed (I prefer decisively) and Iraq needs to be disarmed. They've admitted they have been in violation, they have obfuscated the "inspection" process when they didn't downright refuse to allow it, and the world needs to come together to stop this real danger before it becomes a reactionary issue.

board Lizard

02-19-2003, 10:05 PM

1) Openly serve in the military (admitting to being gay will get you dismissed).

Fine, you want to be allowed in the military? Go over to Iraq with your queer pink scarves and hair bonnets and fight this war for us. Prove to us that homosexuals have some use to counteract their perversion and maybe the majority of people in this country will take you seriously.

Ekin

02-19-2003, 11:27 PM

Why board lizard did not in world trade Center @ 911 ?

addicted.to.eq

02-20-2003, 01:38 AM

To board Lizard:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd beat it back to being straight.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man, it's people like you who make me feel more scared about the future than any dictator in any country.
You proved your lack in intelligence and beating the human rights more than one time.
And i personally think, you are sitting in your room the whole day and night, thinking about your life and be more than unsatisfied with your situation. Maybe you got beaten back to straight more than everyone else here? Maybe you have the drunken father comming home late at night and get you? Maybe you did not get the warm and comfort nest an intact family has? Maybe you are unemployed ? And maybe your jealousy will eat the little rest of you brain?
If you want to tell me you would beat your own flesh and blood, your child, man, i hope you are impotent and you will never be able to have children. /Shiver. I have a child, an 8 year old daughter, and you make me so angry with your stupid art of provocation, i really can't tell you.
But i think i should take this useless answers from you as jeeves does, as a special form of entertainment. You sir are not worth the time i waste on getting angry about you, me thinks.
Do yourself a favour. Accept that you have 2 problems.
First, you live.
Second, you do nothing against it.

Would be a good idea you take your pumpgun (i am sure you have one) and take a trip to iraq, than you can do all of us and your country a big favour and die in the war you are so greedy to have.

It's people like you who ruined your own future. You will not ruin mine.

To the moderator of this board: maybe some things here will get handled in other ways than in germany, but in the boards i normally be and take part in discussions, such posts would be deleted and the user get banned. Tell me if i am taking this to seriously, so i can really understand whats going on here....

And once again, sorry for grammar and spelling errors, english isn 't my native language.

Ekin

02-20-2003, 01:50 AM

History book already hints what will be the outcome .

Everytime US government go to war , did not bring the world better , didn't end the conflict between race , country , or anything . All the war bring to those country is poor , death , chaos.

Also , if US not that dicator why 911 only happen in US ? Why so many people around the world don't like US ? " if you are not with us ,you are against us " <- what do u think ? the words come from dicator ?

cryptorad

02-20-2003, 10:39 AM

Excellent reply to my post. I have to say you did a fine job of source examples. I have a few comments in reply quickly.

The CNN Polls you quote I checked.. and those are their numbers. The polls I checked were FOX. And they showed a different result. Not surprising.. probably different demographics targeted. By and large.. I tend to think there are more who do not want war.. who also have no stake other then making a stand. There are more who want war.. who DO have a vested interest (IE.. Turkey, US, Britain.. etc.),

I find it interesting one of your polls calls the US the worlds leader in threats to the world. Of course.. Britain has called the US nothing but barbarians ever since we revolted against their "rule". Ayep.. I suppose we are. We keep attacking cruel, abusive dictators and regimes that threaten democratic countries. Iraq's and N. Korea's targets are slightly different. But.. might as well clump us all together. :P

Stop doing what? Why.. trying to.. or making.. WMD. There is proof he is doing this. All based on testimony of defectors.. or spies. The inspectors haven't found anything of substance. They HAVE found hard proof Iraq is not cooperating and basically doing the same thing they did for a decade before. And you must admit that is not surprising. The inspectors not finding anything was predicted. BY THE INSPECTORS. They said Iraq cooperation was required. There is proof Iraq is not cooperating fully and unconditionally. There is proof Iraq is actively hiding 'somethings'. But No .. we don't have stockpiles of something to show to you, other then the handful of items that HAVE been found. So it must not exist then... right?? I'm not sure how much more 'proof' you need. I guess you are waiting for one of two;

1) A WMD device to be used by Saddam (AGAIN.. I might add)
2) Someone to manage to catch a large cache of WMD devices being hidden red handed (hard thing to do since they had months of advance warning to get them well and permanently hidden).

Let's me ask you this Jeeves.. if Saddam uses a WMD on US troops or citizens is it OK to go in then? How about a terrorist organization using a WMD on US soil.. that has evidence traces pointing back to Iraq. Is it OK to go in then? Is it OK with you to go in at ANY point in time before those two? If so.. would you please define when. I am a bit confused as to your requirements to authorize force.

You said 50+ years ago to the French and German governments. I think that fact reinforces my case. That's within ONE GENERATION. Proof we do not stick around waiting for re-education to occur, or time itself to eliminate all those who remember. We rely on memories. Nor do we participate in genocide to eliminate our 'opponents'. A tactic employed by several of our dictator/communist regimes we called enemies in the last 50 years. Those doing the complaining are generally of an age that they do NOT remember those events. They have been born since.. and educated under the freedoms we provided. A freedom the country did not posess, IE. complaining against their OWN government(or against ours, which was allowed back then), when we marched in. They are protesting us providing the same freedoms to another country. And they are using those freedoms, we provided, to complain about it. THAT is the irony. You gotta admit.. it's pretty ironic. ;)

You say I need to provide information that everyone (liberal's in particular) were crying No Stop Don't. Amazing. ;) I guess you weren't around back then. (J/K.. I know you were but for some reason.. you won't recall history. ) Ok.. tell ya what.. here's some BOOK titles you can go check out of the library. Tell me what the 'general' feeling is they imply to you. ;) And these books were ALL published AFTER we'd already whupped him in nothing flat. Before the war started.. people were terrified. Afterwards it was like 'what.. that was it??'. I'll get you specific poll numbers and such after I can dig them up.

1) Barnes, Jack. Opening Guns of World War III: Washington's Assault on Iraq. New York, New International, 1991. 333 p. Book call no.: 956.70442 B261o

2) Graubard, Stephen R. Mr. Bush's War: Adventures in the Politics of Illusion. New York, Hill and Wang, 1992. 208 p. Book call no.: 973.928 G774m

3) The Gulf War and the New World Order: International Relations of the Middle East, edited by Tareq Y. Ismael and Jacqueline S. Ismael. Gainesville, University Press of Florida, 1994. 569 p. Book call no.: 327.56 G971

4) Hilsman, Roger. George Bush vs. Saddam Hussein: Military Success! Political Failure?. Novato, CA, Presidio, 1992. 273 p.
Ch.16 The Political Consequences of the Gulf War, pp 205-218. Book call no.: 956.7043 H655g

5) Hybel, Alex Roberto. Power over Rationality: The Bush Administration and the Gulf Crisis. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993. 143 p. Book call no.: 973.928 H992p

6) Menos, Dennis. Arms over Diplomacy: Reflections on the Persian Gulf War. Westport, CT, Praeger, 1992. 174 p. Book call no.: 956.70442 M547a

Let us NOT forget.. the Gulf war started on January 15th 1991. Clinton was elected in 1992. If Bush had been re-elected (Thank Ross Perot for Bush's defeat) then the situation we face today would NEVER have come to pass. I know that for certain. Bush would NEVER have given N. Korea some reactors to build more nukes with. And Iraq would have been forced to comply with the UN resolutions on disarming. We wouldn't have had to wait for 8 years of a poor Democratic president to get to this point when time has been nothing but on THEIR (Iraq and N. Korea) side... making this a much more dangerous situation. Sorry.. I don't think Clinton did very much for us positively, and he did many things that have been bad. Some of them.. may yet.. result in being terrible and our worst historical nightmares. Just my two cents.

board Lizard

02-20-2003, 02:20 PM

I have a child, an 8 year old daughter

Is she hot?

Iam_Walrus

02-20-2003, 02:58 PM

Man, there's a difference between flaming someone and just being a troll. You are one sick piece of shit. That's not even funny, you sick fuck.

Lyroschen

02-20-2003, 05:56 PM

It's a bummer this thread degenerated as it did. Was interesting reading for a while. I've decided to rename board Lizard to "butt Lizard". The irony of it with his anti-gay comments and name calling tactics begged for it.

Regarding the gay rights discussion... I'm not a big fan of "Affirmative Action" largely because I fall in the white mail 18-45 category. The idea behind it was to correct a severe social issue where minorities didn't have the opportunity to succeed. I don't know if it's still applicable, however I do know that it's not always fairly implemented. We're human. It's not possible it be 100% fair in all circumstances. Even if it were, we wouldn't be. Benevolence seems to defy human nature. Plus, laws and such have only a little to do with what is absolutely right. Most often, laws are placed in reaction to a situation. Courts, and in particular judges, are expected to discern from precidence and circumstance if an issue validly fails the intent of the law. They're human too, and as such subject to emotional irresponsibility and mistakes. Many lawyers have made an artform out of twisting the intent of the law... but I digress.

As for the war with Iraq... I can't say our motives are 100% honorable. I can understand why the world (especially our enemies) would be intimidated by the 'big kid on the block'. I don't care much for yellow journalism, and have not found a single reporting agency that doesn't slant a story and misrepresent 'facts'. This includes opinion polls and surveys. They actually teach ways to slant surveys in political science courses. Mostly, the folks who care what the survey says are the folks who agree with it. Those who disagree disregard it as slanted, anyway.

I can say that there are more factors in this war than whether or not Sadaam is a bad guy. But, to compare the 2 predominant sides to the men vs women stereotype...

The men are pro-war. Men see a threat and want to eliminate that threat. The rest of the ramifications don't deter the belief that a threat exists. Men know Sadaam to be a bad guy, and feel direct action fixes it. No other solution gets rid of the bad guy or eliminates him as a threat.

The women see war as a threat, too. For the US to take military action would generate a precidence that would then be used in the future for detering other "threats" which may end up with the US actually becoming the world police (or thug enforcers in some's eyes). The problem is, we won't all agree on what a threat is.

Considering everything that's going on and many of the views posted here it's evident there are folks that would prefer the US representatives in the UN were wrong. That Sadaam has no WMD and wouldn't use them, anyway, except in self-defense. In such a world, war might not be needed in Iraq, and any financial ties to Iraq can be maintained, not to mention there being no loss of life. These folks want to be convinced with proof, before taking action. Much like we have to prove a murder before we can electricute the murderer. This is the arena of a lawyer, and probably the reason so many politicians are/were lawyers. From what I can see, neither side is truley beetle-headed (means shortsighted for those not familiar with the slang). The sides just seem to stem from different sets of priorities. In general, if Sadaam did ever try to "take on the world" it would likely be his last act of defiance. So, folks without the military means to challenge Iraq would prefer that the US only retaliate after a direct attack, believing that such a threat is enough of a deterant and forceable disarmament is unnecessary. Only problem with this scenario is that if he does use his weapons, someone will get hurt. The likely first-strike targets seem to be the ones that are pushing for proactive action, and the non-likely targets seem to be pushing for reactive action (or no immediate action).

In case I hadn't made it clear, I'm of the mind that Sadaam is a bad guy, and we should take him out. I also believe that unifying the world would be a good thing, and a pre-requisit to world peace. Unfortunately, unifying the world is tricky in the political arena. The only ideas I can pull from history in this regard have all been domination by force; not a popular idea with the "good guys". So, until there's a better solution, world peace remains as a unicorn.

lala

02-23-2003, 06:37 PM

just some things to think about:
why is the US trying to bomb iraq? he has massdestruction weapons? he invaded kuwait 10 years ago?
US is the country with the most massdestruction weapons in world!
US is the country who invaded most other contries in the last 50 years!

if the US invading iraq without a prove they have massdestruction weapons, is like killing someone you dont like cause you think that he can possible have a weapon...

Iam_Walrus

02-24-2003, 10:42 AM

I'll not rip on your grammar and spelling because you're obviously from a country that doesn't speak English as it's primary language, or you're from Arkansas...

why is the US trying to bomb iraq? he has massdestruction weapons? he invaded kuwait 10 years ago?

The US is not trying to bomb Iraq. If we wanted to bomb Iraq, we'd have done so already, and quite effectively. To further that thought, it is the desire of the majority of the United Nations to force Iraq into compliance since the Iraqi leaders obviously do not wish to obey the edicts given to then twelve years ago. Why does the UN demand that Iraq "disarm?" Because Iraq has had the privilege of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (WMD) taken from them because they invaded Kuwait, violated Geneva Convention sanctions and caused world-wide distress by firing oil producing machinery twelve years ago. They have yet to abide by the rules set for them, so now we find ourselves here.

US is the country with the most massdestruction weapons in world!

To use the almighty jeeves' favorite line, can you prove that? If you could provide accurate numbers detailing what has yet to be sold from the mammoth soviet supply, I might be willing to agree. Otherwise, this is merely a tired line of bullshit.

US is the country who invaded most other contries in the last 50 years!

Oh really? Which countries have we invaded? I don't recall adding any new states, provinces or principalities? Which countries have we invaded?

Oh, you mean which countries have we responded to international threats? You might detail those, but since we aren't generating any new tax income or waving our flag above their capitals, I don't think you're going to be able to make any convincing arguments.

if the US invading iraq without a prove they have massdestruction weapons, is like killing someone you dont like cause you think that he can possible have a weapon...

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for invading Iraq. I'd like to see the entire Iraqi "government" executed. I'd like to see a democratic system of government installed. I'd like to see a realistic education system put into place. I'd love to see an affirmative action plan put into place for the liberation of their women from millenia of caste-like oppression.

Unfortunately, America doesn't want to operate on the level of reform that I'd like to see. We seem to have some complex about "stooping to their level." Personally, I feel "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." Why is it OK for some asshole dictator like Hussein to commit international crimes and not pay for them? He's not only used outlawed bio-chemical weaponry during times of war, but he's also used them on his own people. You feel that's just fine, do you? Poor Hussein! Poor Iraq! There go the brutal, evil Americans again, picking on the completely innocent!

Yeah, we just suck like that, dude...

johnbarbarian

03-03-2003, 04:16 PM

Quote from Elkin<<History book already hints what will be the outcome . >>>>

Everytime US government go to war , did not bring the world better , didn't end the conflict between race , country , or anything . All the war bring to those country is poor , death , chaos.
__________________________________________________ __

You are incorrect sir. Please look at the countries that have actually been to war with the U.S. For instance: Japan, Germany, and Italy. Yes they had hardships afterwards. (As the winning side did)

However, to say that those countries did not come out of the war much better off than the U.S. would have if it had lost is bordering on stupidity.

__________________________________________________ __
Also , if US not that dicator why 911 only happen in US ?
__________________________________________________ __

Again incorrect. Please check how many terrorist acts occur around the world. While you are at it check the atrocities commited by "dictators" on their own people. I would include that in the same catagory. (They rule pretty much by terror)

__________________________________________________ __
Why so many people around the world don't like US ?
__________________________________________________ __

Perhaps because everyone dislikes the people that have it better than them? Jealousy? inferiority feelings? Maybe becuase that is how they have been taught since they were children? Perhaps it has to do with insecurity? Or maybe becuase most of the people that "really" hate the U.S. have been "brainwashed" to that point?

How about this: How many people (not governments, people)have a specific reason to hate the U.S.? and why?
__________________________________________________ _
" if you are not with us ,you are against us " <- what do u think ? the words come from dicator ?
__________________________________________________ __

Sounds like a dictation to me. Good thing we have the right and the freedom to disagree. If we were in some other countries we would not be able to do so.

I know that this is a pretty hot topic and tempers flare. But to throw out stuf like that is foolish.

Personally I do not support a war with Iraq. (or any war for that matter) I would support assassination but that would make me a terrorist in that country:P

What I would support is a complete and utter cutting off of the country from the outside until such a time that they decided that they would be better off living peacably.

No arms, no technology, no lesuire products, no food, no outside contact. They can see the world and what it has to offer but cannot touch it. Call it a time out for a bad kid:)

TDES

03-03-2003, 07:25 PM

Personally I do not support a war with Iraq. (or any war for that matter) I would support assassination but that would make me a terrorist in that country:P

What I would support is a complete and utter cutting off of the country from the outside until such a time that they decided that they would be better off living peacably.

No arms, no technology, no lesuire products, no food, no outside contact. They can see the world and what it has to offer but cannot touch it. Call it a time out for a bad kid:)

Hey that's a great idea ... maybe we could get the UN to put some sort of .. I don't know ... "sanctions" against the country.

Yeah .. and we would phrohibit exports so that they couldn't build their military machine. Or even better, we could enact some kind of "oil for food" program that allows only basic life supporting supplies or medicines. Heck, we could even ask "peaceful" countries like France to help manage such a program. I mean you know THEY would never take advantage of it.

Yeah, that would be a great solution, too bad we didn't think of this before we started all this "enforcement" BS.

:P

Borscht

03-04-2003, 11:35 PM

No arms, no technology, no lesuire products, no food, no outside contact. They can see the world and what it has to offer but cannot touch it. Call it a time out for a bad kid

I think a long time ago they used to do this sort of thing, back then it was called a "siege". Was considered an act of war, still is actually.

So technically what you're suggesting is instead of waging war, we simply wage war.

Of course, Iraq isn't a single fortress that can be surrounded. And let's just ignore the fact that we've already had embargos and trade restrictions and sanctions for 12 years now.

While brilliant luminaries such as yourself utter sophomoric drivel, the people of Iraq continue to be systematically raped, tortured, and oppressed by a madman.

The people of Iraq already suffer the fate you would propose to impose on them. They suffer it at the hands of a tyant. And you suggest that we apply that very same punishment. Joining Saddam in forcing his subjects into a 14th century existence in a 21st century world.

The comforting reality, however, is that we have grownups in charge again. The people of Iraq will be liberated, as the people of Afghanistan were. Eventually the entire Middle East will be able to satisfy mankind's most basic yearning....freedom.

And there's not a damn thing you can do to prevent that. Thank God.

johnbarbarian

03-05-2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Borscht

I think a long time ago they used to do this sort of thing, back then it was called a "siege". Was considered an act of war, still is actually.

So technically what you're suggesting is instead of waging war, we simply wage war.
__________________________________________________ __
In that context you would be right. It would be waging a war.
-A war that has a heck of a lot less chance to escalate into a world war.
-A war that has a much lower chance of getting many of our people killed.
-A war that has alot less chance of having the world ostracize the U.S.
__________________________________________________ __

Of course, Iraq isn't a single fortress that can be surrounded. And let's just ignore the fact that we've already had embargos and trade restrictions and sanctions for 12 years now.
__________________________________________________ __

Embargos and trade restrictions from one corner of the "castle"
have little to no impact when you leave the other three corners open. In case you don't understand my reference please read the latest issue of Time magazine where it shows pictures of tanker trucks lined up to go into Iraq from Turkey and explains how much oil is currently being exported from Iraq to friendly countries like France, Russia, et al.

__________________________________________________ __
While brilliant luminaries such as yourself utter sophomoric drivel, the people of Iraq continue to be systematically raped, tortured, and oppressed by a madman.
__________________________________________________ __

Wow, I haven't been called a briliant luminary since I was a sophmore:P
__________________________________________________ __

The people of Iraq already suffer the fate you would propose to impose on them. They suffer it at the hands of a tyant. And you suggest that we apply that very same punishment. Joining Saddam in forcing his subjects into a 14th century existence in a 21st century world.
__________________________________________________ __

You have never lived a lower class life style have you? Let me just say that when you don't have anything to eat and your children are starving you will do whatever it takes to get them and yourself fed. Even if that includes joining a military that is against everything you beleive in.... or rising up against your oppressors.

Personally I would prefer that they live a 14th century existance than kill them. However, the faction that Saddam belongs to is in the minority. (roughly 22% of Iraq citizens BTW) so to assume that he will rule for any real length of time through the turmoil of today much less the closing of all outside ties would be a far stretch.
A very real danger is that he gains popular support throughout that part of the world. That is a real threat when you are killing people of the same or similar cultures. It is not a threat when he is killing his own people.
__________________________________________________ __

The comforting reality, however, is that we have grownups in charge again. The people of Iraq will be liberated, as the people of Afghanistan were. Eventually the entire Middle East will be able to satisfy mankind's most basic yearning....freedom.
__________________________________________________ __

Yes very comforting. Hopefully they will live up to their responsibilities of both being grown up and leading the people down the right path. I, for one, do not pretend to know what that path is for everyone in the world. And I do not condone killing people to make sure that they follow my path.
Warmongers and tyrants would disagree....

And there's not a damn thing you can do to prevent that. Thank God.

dbrot

03-05-2003, 02:06 PM

How many of you that are commenting on this topic have actually been over there? It's one thing to say "Oh we should do this and we should go over there and nuke the hell out of Saddam, blah blah blah" But are you willing to put your life on the line to back up those words? How many of you have actually put on a uniform and been over there when the shit hits the fan? I spent a year of my life over in that sand box. And for what? Just so Saddam can turn around and do the same thing 10 years later.

Do you actually think the U.S. would give a damn about some 3rd world country if we were not so dependant on that country for oil. The U.S. buys over 40% of it's oil from these rag-head countries that do support terrorism. Did you know that most of the 911 hijackers were Saudis, and Saudi Arabia is suppose to be our ally.

If the U.S. were not so dependant on foreign oil, we would not give a damn about Iraq or Iran. If our vehicles got 40 mpg, we would not need to depend on foreign oil at all. But everyone is so content on driving their 3 ton SUV that gets 5 mpg.

Mr. Suspicious

03-05-2003, 02:55 PM

Just a small corection on the "Tyrant that opresses his own people". The Koerdish people since the end of the Gulf War (the population group he used gas and other bad things against during and before the Gulf War). As a matter of fact, the Koerds have had a great autonomie for the last decade. Their territory takes up the northern 30% of Iraq.

The Koerds oppose a war against Sadam, even tho they have been (the Bush administration says "still are") oppressed and victims of this "animal". They are know Turkey will invade Iraq and surpress that entire region as soon as a war starts, taking away the freedom they've had for the last decade. Why would Turkey do this (they already stated they will do so)? To prevent a Koerdic republic emerging... Turks regard the Koerds as Terrorists and as a mayor thread.

Rather funny situation if you think about it. To be regarded by the US as your main "inside" ally and by the Turks (another ally) an "enemy".

Bush (US): "We need to liberate these poor opressed Koerds from Saddam"
Aznir (Turkey): "We need to secure Koerdistan, so they won't establish their own independant Republic, if needed with force"
Koerds: "We don't want to be "liberated" by you, leave us in peace!"

wolfy

03-05-2003, 04:23 PM

nuke them till they glow, then shoot them in the dark :)

I dont think there should be a war...too disruptive to the world.....get the CIA sleepers to assasinate instead :P

cryptorad

03-06-2003, 12:46 AM

I would have loved to have linked this from CNN.. but alas.. they do not provide this information anywhere on their site. They have a scanned copy of 'notes'.. I presume the ones he used to MAKE this report with. But the report itself I could only find here. Odd, when you consider how IMPORTANT this information would be to Americans (or anyone else) trying to decide if a war with Iraq is necessary. The basic facts should be made available by news sources, you would think.....

But.. without FURTHER ado.. I give you the link that basically confirms WHY we should be going to war with Iraq .. and VERY soon.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html

Read the whole thing.. although I feel the last 4 or 5 paragraphs don't say anything of substance.

Also remember.. that while Blix was providing this 'history' lesson on Iraq and WMD, that Blix does not mention the inspectors GREATEST embarassment. When in 1995, Saddam's own son in law defected with undeniable proof (which resulted in Iraq admitting the evidence was true) that Iraq had created, developed, employed and produced a VX gas program, and stockpiles of VX gas, WHILE the inspectors were in country following the 1991 Gulf War. Couple that knowledge with the evidence of Iraqs recent creation of rockets which were also developed and created in DIRECT violation of numerous sanctions written SPECIFICALLY to prevent what he appears to be working towards. What's that you say??

Those rockets are the PERFECT weapons to drop VX on Israel and totally genocide Jerusalem. And.. they don't really have much other military value, before you say 'well.. how do you know that'. Unlike a nuke.. the land will be quite usable and able to be occupied after the air clears (pun intended).

Ok.. who wants to wait a few more years?? Raise your hand!!

If your hands in the air, I consider you a fool, and a danger to yourself, your neighbors and my children. Don't expect me to like that.

splooge

03-06-2003, 01:46 PM

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.php/463c5922/arguing.jpg

cryptorad

03-06-2003, 01:48 PM

LOL

*PS*.. I'm not laughing at the picture. That things been around for YEARS.

codepig666

03-07-2003, 09:36 PM

I was trying to figure out exactly why France was being so aggressively against war. A friend pointed out that France holds billions of dollars in oil contracts with Iraq and does billions of dollars worth of business with them. Financially speaking, France is probably Iraq's single largest ally.

It was also suggested, however, that if we DO go to war that France won't risk the Veto vote because they know we would punish them by exempting whatever new government we set up from honoring France's old contracts.

I'm interested to see if it works out that way.

cryptorad

03-07-2003, 11:12 PM

Good point.

Personally, my "political BS translator" says.. that that has already happened.

If you read between the lines a little bit.. the Bush administrations statements of late, and Powell's remarks in particular, clearly say that we are going to "rebuild Iraq with the coalition of the willing". That coalition does NOT include France, Germany or Russia at this time. Nor a string of other countries that have no desire to help us.

It was part of the veiled threat/pressure they were exerting to get countries to come onboard. It didn't have the desired effect.

It makes sense though.. why should we just hand over billions of assets to someone who refuses to help. SOOO.. BP will prolly get the oil rights. Honestly.. the ones scared to death of this are the Arab's. US control of Iraq's oil reserves effectively breaks OPEC's power hold. It was always powerful because it was a monopoly. No monopoly. No Power! ;)

Iraq hasn't fulfilled the terms of the 1991 cease fire. The US has the right, under international law, to return to Iraq WITH FORCE. This grants them 'spoils of war' rights under international law. BUT.. (back to politics a second) the cost to rebuild Iraq will be considerable. Personally.. I think that's the BIGGEST reason most of the countries are saying no. They don't want to pay their portion of the pricetag of the rebuild. They want us to choke on it. Like we did for Japan, Germany, East Germany, Korea.. etc etc etc..

We will pay the pricetag. Like we always do.. and because we really WANT to this time also. But.. I doubt we're going to hand the sweet spots over to folks who did NOTHING but obstruct.. when it comes time for the payday. So.. basically.. the US is saying to the business interests of France, Germany and Russia....

PFFFFFT!!!!

futuro

03-08-2003, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by cryptorad

It makes sense though.. why should we just hand over billions of assets to someone who refuses to help. SOOO.. BP will prolly get the oil rights. Honestly.. the ones scared to death of this are the Arab's. US control of Iraq's oil reserves effectively breaks OPEC's power hold. It was always powerful because it was a monopoly. No monopoly. No Power! ;)

So it is about the oil, isn't it?

All along, this whole war, all the "reasons", the WMD's, the "opressed people of Iraq", the "violated UN sanctions", the "in league with terrorists".... it all boils down to one thing :

If there was no oil, Bush would't give a flying fuck about Iraq, would he?

cryptorad

03-08-2003, 10:18 AM

/Sigh Futuro

If I really need to.. I'll gladly explain it to you... But.. based on how much information you are missing (in order to make a statement like you did) I really doubt you'll have the persistence to read the whole thing.

Sooo.. do you really care? Do you really want to read it.. or are you just a US hater? Cause if you are just a US hater... I can ignore you.. and save myself alot of typing.

Let me know.

TDES

03-08-2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by codepig666
I was trying to figure out exactly why France was being so aggressively against war. A friend pointed out that France holds billions of dollars in oil contracts with Iraq and does billions of dollars worth of business with them. Financially speaking, France is probably Iraq's single largest ally.

It was also suggested, however, that if we DO go to war that France won't risk the Veto vote because they know we would punish them by exempting whatever new government we set up from honoring France's old contracts.

I'm interested to see if it works out that way.

Needing France to assist in a war is like saying you need a piano to go deer hunting.

Since some are so fond of harping on the US jumping into bed with dictators when it politically suits us, lets not forget the French built Iraq's short lived nuclear reactor (thanks Isreal) and even named it after Chirac. Their hands are no cleaner than ours when it comes to backing Saddam.

What will be interesting to see is what's going to happen to the Atantic aliance over the few years. If dubbya fucks this up, he'll be out in a year and Hillory or whoever will undoubtedly get the socialists back together in a big group hug. But if ole 41 pulls this off and Iraqis embrace our imperialist ways, things will be awfully bumpy for "old europe".

Mr. Suspicious

03-08-2003, 08:41 PM

Of all countries in the world, only 6... 6 agree on ïmmediate action", only 6 more want a new resolution now, so action can be taken... all others oppose any military action in the current process... so all but 12 countries disagree with Mr. Bush's plans... they must all be wrong.

Originally posted by codepig666
I was trying to figure out exactly why France was being so aggressively against war. A friend pointed out that France holds billions of dollars in oil contracts with Iraq and does billions of dollars worth of business with them. Financially speaking, France is probably Iraq's single largest ally.

Your friend has been misinformed. The large mayority of oil exported by Iraq is exported to China. Second party buying Iraq bulk oil is the US.

TDES

03-08-2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Suspicious
Your friend has been misinformed. The large mayority of oil exported by Iraq is exported to China. Second party buying Iraq bulk oil is the US. [/B]

Where's your data from ?

I'm not disputing that indirect sales from countries buying iraqi oil don't make it's way here, but CNN and CBS report Russia being iraqs largest oil customer.

futuro

03-08-2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by cryptorad
/Sigh Futuro

If I really need to.. I'll gladly explain it to you... But.. based on how much information you are missing (in order to make a statement like you did) I really doubt you'll have the persistence to read the whole thing.

Sooo.. do you really care? Do you really want to read it.. or are you just a US hater? Cause if you are just a US hater... I can ignore you.. and save myself alot of typing.

Let me know.

On the contrary, I love the USA and that love is what's making me argue against Bush's false war. I've heard all the arguements for the war, and against Saddam, and say "so what?". Even Bush, in his speech last wednesday would only say the Iraq "could" invade his neighbors, and "could" give wmd to terrorists. Since when does the US act when someone "could" do something?

You must remember, this is a country by all accounts that is 1/10 as strong militarily as it was pre gulf war. It's been patrolled by US and British war planes, inspected, sanctioned, and in many ways totally stripped of any real potential to attack anybody, let alone the most powerful nation on earth.

As far as information I'm missing, perhaps you haven't watched cable news channels, with their constant propaganda against Iraq and pro-war. I think we've all heard the arguements for this war, and unfortunately they don't ring true for me. As far as UN resolutions go, there are countries that have violated UNSC resolutions for far longer than Iraq has (Israel, Turkey and Greece come to mind), yet we don't seem all that concerned about them, do we? As far as the "oppressed people of Iraq" arguement, there's many billions more opressed people around the world we don't seem to care about. As far as the "dictator" arguement, we're good buddies with many dictaror's around the world, as a matter of fact, we freed Kuwait from Saddam's ugly grip to save it for monarchy. We weren't too concerned about the rights of the people of Kuwait, and we're not too concerned about the people of Saudi Arabia, either, are we? Or Pakistan, or dozens of other countries around the world that oppress their citizens.

The "aiding terrorists" issue is moot, no official of the US or any country has sucessfully tied Iraq to the WTC attack, or any other Al Queda attack, or to any other terrorist group. The notion that Iraq is alone in sending cash to suicide bombers families in Palestine is ludicrous, since Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan do or have done the same.

And as if I had any doubt, the reports coming out just yesterday that the US and Britan fabricated the evidence about Iraq's nuclear capability just show me the depths of delusion this administration is willing to reach for to justify this war.

One you include the concern the US military has for the oil rigs, seemingly exceeding the concern for civilians, and the eager jockeying amongst US oil companies for dividing up the oil fields after the war, and (get ready, here's a real kicker) a subsidiary of Dick Cheney's Haliburton getting a contract to put out the expected oil fires, you can see what this war is REALLY about.

futuro

03-08-2003, 10:05 PM

Oh, and one more thing...

I completely resent the idea that being against this false war in any way makes me a US hater. Saying things like that reveal the lack of cognitive arguements you're able to make to support your zeal for war.

There are many intelligent, well-informed people who are against this war simply becasue they love their country and don't want to see it set down a road where we dictate to other countries what type of government they have or would should be their leader by force.

Some of us feel that this makes us just as bad as those we hate.

Mr. Suspicious

03-09-2003, 09:11 AM

TDES
Where's your data from ?

I'm not disputing that indirect sales from countries buying iraqi oil don't make it's way here, but CNN and CBS report Russia being iraqs largest oil customer.

Journalism the last decades has been moved from "investigating the facts and reporting factual finds" to "note down what someone sais and print it". From a commercial view this is quite understandable, it's easier, more cost effective and... if you're wrong, law only requires you to print a rectification (in small print on page 43 way way below the advertisements =P). You'll see examples of this from quoted articles that mysteriously "vanish" (as the one reported in a previous post) or simply aren't used anymore as basis for an article... they've been wrong information. Unfortunally by consumers valued news services as CNN and CBS are more often wrong in their news coverage in the last 10 years then before... an unfortunate, but understandable development due to commercialisation.

Anyway... Where to find this: at the source of the data ofcourse: UN oil for food program (http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/index.html), the UN news center (http://www.un.org/apps/news/search.asp). From statements there you'll notice that altho the food-for-oil program actually IS the Iraq economy, altho it wasn't designed for it. This means that the mayority of goods exported by Iraq is oil.

Now we look at Iraq's economie fact sheet (Wallstreet Journal) (http://cf.heritage.org/index/country.cfm?ID=69.0) and The World Factbook 2002 (CIA) (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/iz.html) and notice:

Major exports: crude oil
Major export trading partners (to whom the oil is sold):
US 46.2%
Italy 12.2%
France 9.6%
Spain 8.6%

Edit: My appologies for stating China was the largest "customer" for Iraqi oil, I meant in percentage of China oil imports and percentage of US oil imports.

TDES

03-09-2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Suspicious
Journalism the last decades has been moved from "investigating the facts and reporting factual finds" to "note down what someone sais and print it".

No argument there :)

Thanks for the links.

cryptorad

03-10-2003, 08:35 AM

Well.. those figures are very good to base decisions. I appreciate the links as well.

But... I have some personal knowledge (verifiable by the persistent) to add to it.

I did not see Germany listed as a major trade partner. Without revealing too much about myself I will say that I know for a FACT that certain German medical companies have sold medical equipment and technological support to Iraq in quantities large enough to change the figures posted. I know this because MY COMPANY ALONE has a contract which would change those numbers posted.

Saddam himself is the biggest reason.. he thinks he'll be attacked for some reason and each of his palaces has enough medical equipment in the basement to make the average sized American city jealous. Most (possibly all) of it sits unused and unavailable for public use. There was never any evidence any of it was ever used to help the average Iraqi. I have a personal friend who traveled there as part of the contract as part of the 'technical support'. Sooo.. while I didn't see it myself I have to state it as fact based on the 'circumstantial' evidence and the reports of reliable, respectable professionals with no reason to fabricate.

Incidentally.. the middle east in general and Arab countries in particular LOVE German companies and products. My companies contracts in the middle east are extremely excessive. I myself was queried as to being one of the representatives because the dollar figures (or mark, franc or ruble figures depending on your reference) are astronomical. They have money.. lots.. so they buy what they need. And the germans are their producers of choice. Something about the jews are common enemies or something...

And while it lists the US as a major exporting partner.. their 46 percent export of their entire economy equals our 1 or 2 percent import of oil. No economic comparison. But huge economic potential.

And last but not least.. let us not miss this little gem buried inside these reports...

" but the regime reportedly has been bolstered by oil smuggling and illegal surcharges on legal oil buyers. Iraq refuses to provide basic economic data to the United Nationsa requirement of membershipor any other international organization. This lack of data is so complete that international financial institutions, foreign government agencies, and private businesses that provide economic analysis and data refuse to publish any official data or estimates on Iraq's economy. This situation makes it impossible to score several factors and raises questions about the reliability of data in the other factors. "

Futuro...

I've written a ton in response to you.. and never posted any of it. I really haven't decided what to say to you.. the amount of information I must provide to support my case is incredible. And since your statements indicate you are missing either the point.. or the raw data itself.. I have not really decided how to present the case so that you can evaluate it.

Suffice it to say though.. I haven't forgotten your requests and I will gladly get to a rebuttal in time.. if I can do it without typing a book. I already post on this thread too much as it is.

board Lizard

03-10-2003, 01:41 PM

Yueh

03-10-2003, 03:12 PM

Of all countries in the world, only 6... 6 agree on ïmmediate action", only 6 more want a new resolution now, so action can be taken... all others oppose any military action in the current process...

Only 6 have unequivicably backed the US position. How exactly does that translate into "all others oppose any military action?"

lane

03-10-2003, 03:13 PM

I can't belive this post is still going..... Get back to playing EQ people. Sheesh. :)

-Lane

Yueh

03-10-2003, 03:15 PM

This is the most level headed and civilized discussion I've seen on this in weeks! Why let it die :)

cryptorad

03-10-2003, 03:35 PM

I guess ole 6 6 6 is a thing of the past already.

It looks like, as of today, 9 of the 15 Security council members will vote for military action.. which is why France has announced they will use their veto. The last tool they have to block the resolutions passage. If the Security council passes the resolution in numbers, but it is the victim of a French veto, then I strongly expect the US to go forward quickly. And all of France's interest's in Iraq (IE.. all the billions of dollars in oil rights) will be forfeit.

That's a pretty costly decision they are making.. I truly wonder why they feel this way. I know they have a huge economic interest in Iraq.. but if Iraq is a free democracy then their economic benefits would only increase, although it would take a little time. I suspect there are forces at play with France I have no clue about. Well.. no sensible forces.

I do know that France is playing a terribly dangerous game with US soldiers lives and there is alot of risk to the US in proceeding with France trying to block every move.

Ahh well. DDay was a difficult undertaking. And we won that one. And even if the French have forgotten we won that day, albeit at a terrible price, we haven't forgotten. Neither the price.. nor the prize. Freedom is expensive. And the US has paid for it more (both in lives and in dollars) then any other county in the world. Any country I can think of anyhow. If anyone has any ideas of another country that has supported freedom as much as the US.. please post it. I am curious to hear about it.

Vive la France!

futuro

03-10-2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by cryptorad

I do know that France is playing a terribly dangerous game with US soldiers lives and there is alot of risk to the US in proceeding with France trying to block every move.

Who's playing a terribly dangerous game with US soldiers lives? Not France, they're not sending US soldiers into a country that hasn't attacked them. If anyone is playing a game with US soldiers lives, it would have to be Bush. He's the one who is sending our boys into a country we have no business sending them into. He's the one who has marketed this war for at least a year. We're the ones sending US troops into a potentially dangerous situation, with very little upside for the US and major, long-term downsides.

And for what?

Yueh

03-10-2003, 05:16 PM

So if it turns out Iraq DOES happen to have a large amount of VX and anthrax, is the feeling that we should still wait to deal with the issue until Saddam becomes outwardly aggressive?

It seems there are two debates going on simultaneously. One is, "Do you go to war before you are attacked?" The other is, "Is Iraq a threat to the US and/or the world?"

The answer to the second question in the international community seems to be a resounding yes. Given that, it would seem the nice clean policy of "Don't attack until attacked" is a very dangerous moral ground to hold given the potential of these agents to be dispersed.

Iam_Walrus

03-10-2003, 05:16 PM

What do you have against the women of Iraq that have been opressed and abused for millenia? Why do they not deserve equality just as women in the "western" world have enjoyed?

By not supporting the liberation of Iraq to democracy, are you saying that you support denial of the liberation of Iraqi women?

That's just one benefit the people of Iraq will enjoy if liberated from the reign of their current dictatorship.

How about education of their children? Do you oppose education? Do you oppose democracy? Is it only okay for western cultures to enjoy such comforts and freedoms?

What about the freedom of "free speech" that you are currently enjoying? Is it only okay for people from the United States to enjoy the freedom to slander their leadership with unprovable rhetoric about "war for oil?" I know, take a trip to Iraq and protest in the streets about what a bastard Hussein is. I bet you'll make some serious social reform that way...

Sure, the US is lying about the Al Qaida/Iraq terrorist links. We only want to invade because we want oil to continue flowing like it currently seems not to be :rolleyes:

It's going to be interesting to see the complete lack of WMD from Iraq when the fighting begins. Will you retract your statements when they start launching, or continue to damn the US for the bullies that we so obviously are?

spiceman

03-10-2003, 06:53 PM

France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes."
- --Mark Twain

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
- -- General George S. Patton

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
- --Norman Schwartzkopf

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
- --Marge Simpson

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
- --Jacques Chirac, President of France

"As far as France is concerned, you're right."
- --Rush Limbaugh,

"The only time France wants us to go to war ! is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
- --Regis Philbin

"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know."
- --P.J O'Rourke (1989)

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."
- --John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."
- --Conan O'Brien

"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"
- --Jay Leno

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
- --David Letterman

How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb? One, he holds the bulb and all of Europe revolves around him.

Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France.

Drink more American wine!

futuro

03-10-2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Yueh
So if it turns out Iraq DOES happen to have a large amount of VX and anthrax, is the feeling that we should still wait to deal with the issue until Saddam becomes outwardly aggressive?

I have a big problem with this whole "Agressive Saddam" business. He's only ever
1) Attacked Iran (the stronger country at the time), to try to keep his governence intact, with our approval and support. No mention from us when he used gas on Iranians, by the way.
2) Gassed a Kurdish town that was supporting Iran in the war. No mention at the time from us then, either.
3) Invaded Kuwait, perhaps the worst thing he has done, and we and the world community repelled that attack immediately. Also, he didn't use any WMD in that war, against us or anyone else. He lobbed a couple of conventional rockets at Israel. OK, fine.

All these things happened more than 12 years ago.

He's never threatened the US, he's never been implicated in a terrorist attack on the US, his country and military has been weakened almost to the point of impotence, and he hasn't attempted any stupid thing in the last 12 years.

What are we afraid of?

It seems there are two debates going on simultaneously. One is, "Do you go to war before you are attacked?"

That's called "starting a war". Can you imagine telling a cop "He was going to hit me, so I hit him first". "No officer, he didn't say he was going to hit me, I just thought he was".

The other is, "Is Iraq a threat to the US and/or the world?"

I don't think so. I don't think Bush thinks so, either.

The answer to the second question in the international community seems to be a resounding yes.

No, I don't think that's true. I think there is more fear of going againt the wishes of the US. It shames me to say it, but in many cases we're acting like spoiled bullies. The whole "coalitition" has been bought through threats, implied or explicit, and in some cases hard cash. In 1991, we didn't have to do that, we were on much firmer ground.

Given that, it would seem the nice clean policy of "Don't attack until attacked" is a very dangerous moral ground to hold given the potential of these agents to be dispersed.

It boggles my mind to think that people have this idea of Saddam as some kind of suicidal maniac. If anything, he's exhibited a high sense of self-preservation. Any sane, or not too mentally retarded person would know that launching a missle full of anthrax at Israel or the US, or giving terrorists the WMD in this climate of watching everything he does, would be a sure ticket to (insert favorite afterlife myth here).

I don't think there's a real fear of an imminent attack, or even a fear of an attack down the road. Why would he? He'd be crushed if there was any implication that he was involved.

I really think that this is a bullshit war to enrich oil companies, prop up Bush's poll numbers, and take people's minds off the real problems in this country.

And for those of you who think that I'm being cynical aobut our government : No I'm being a realist. Last night's airing of the "Pentagon Papers" movie on FX made me relive and review those documents. It was amazing the depths of deception four presidents stooped to, to engage the US in the Viet Nam war. I lost an Uncle and a cousin in that war, and I'll be damned if I trust our government again when it says that we have to go to war when we haven't been attacked, and no reasonable person can say we're even about to be attacked.

And just to deflame those who will cry "What about 9/11?" , NO ONE has made the case that Iraq was involved AT ALL in that crime. Right now, supposedly AL Queda operatives are in regions of Iraq not even controlled by Saddam, ready to strike out at US troops. They're there to do two things : Attack our troops, and inflame us against Saddam. Al Queda has everything to gain from the US attacking Iraq. They can gain thousands more recruits, and rid the Arab world of the infidel Saddam. Why are we doing this, when we have nothing to gain, and everything to lose?

futuro

03-10-2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Iam_Walrus
What do you have against the women of Iraq that have been opressed and abused for millenia? Why do they not deserve equality just as women in the "western" world have enjoyed?

It's not for the US to force reforms like this on a country. If we were really so concerned about Arab women's rights, why don't we start in Saudi Arabia, supposedly our friend? I don't see any initiatives from the Bush administration to that effect

By not supporting the liberation of Iraq to democracy, are you saying that you support denial of the liberation of Iraqi women?

I wonder about this "democracy" thing, I really do. Will it be the same kind of "democracy" we established in S.Viet Nam?

That's just one benefit the people of Iraq will enjoy if liberated from the reign of their current dictatorship.

I just think this whole "democracy" arguement is a strawman. After all, we fully support the repressive Islamic monarchy in Saudi Arabia, we fully support the repressive Islamic military government in Pakistan.

How about education of their children? Do you oppose education? Do you oppose democracy? Is it only okay for western cultures to enjoy such comforts and freedoms?

Pakistan has a lower literacy rate (42%) than Iraq (58% Source : CIA World Factbook 2002) , let's attack them and build schools.

What about the freedom of "free speech" that you are currently enjoying? Is it only okay for people from the United States to enjoy the freedom to slander their leadership with unprovable rhetoric about "war for oil?" I know, take a trip to Iraq and protest in the streets about what a bastard Hussein is. I bet you'll make some serious social reform that way...

There's plenty of countries where speaking your mind is a ticket to jail or worse. Since when is Bush so keen on "liberating" them? I'm not too sure that freedom of speech is something Kuwatiis enjoy, is it?

This is just another in the long line of silly excuses for this war.

Sure, the US is lying about the Al Qaida/Iraq terrorist links. We only want to invade because we want oil to continue flowing like it currently seems not to be :rolleyes:

Do you have any idea how many lies were told about Viet Nam? The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was drafted months before the faked attack. Just recently, the IAEC deemed the US and British "evidence" that Saddam was trying to procure uranium falsified.
In the last tape purportedly to be from Bin Laden, he referred to Saddam as "infidel", a point totally glossed over by Colin Powell in his attempt to make Bin Laden's statements about "support for the people of Iraq" into some kind of glowing tribute to Saddam.

And for those who claim the "cost of the war will exceed any benefit in oil", just remember, it's the US taxpayers who will be picking up the costs, the profits will go to Bush's oil friends.

It's going to be interesting to see the complete lack of WMD from Iraq when the fighting begins. Will you retract your statements when they start launching, or continue to damn the US for the bullies that we so obviously are?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I've never denied that Iraq has chem or bio weapons. After all, the US gave them to him, and stood by when he used them before. And if he does have them, I'm sure anyone reading this, being beset by a vastly superior force, with certain anilelation ahead, wouldn't hesitate to use those weapons when push comes to shove, if it's the only outside chance to survive.

One question : What do you call the strongest kid on the block, who beats up on one of the weakest kids, simply because he might have a water pistol filled with rubbing alcohol in his pocket and the big kid might get squirted?

And what would you do if you were the weak kid with the squirt gun?

Yueh

03-11-2003, 11:46 AM

All these things happened more than 12 years ago.

He's never threatened the US, he's never been implicated in a terrorist attack on the US, his country and military has been weakened almost to the point of impotence, and he hasn't attempted any stupid thing in the last 12 years.

Absolutely true... BUT, we have been running a low level war with Iraq for the last 12 years to keep the Iraqi military weakened. I do agree with you when you say that Saddam is essentially just out to preserve his regime and his country. But, and I know this has been overused lately but it IS relevant, so was Hitler. The question is what will he do when it becomes in his best interest to start selling WMD to terroists to further his goals.

We already know there is absolutely no love lost between Iraq and Israel. What happens when, in the interest of Palestinian liberation, Iraq lobs another missle into Israel that has a significant impact on Israeli lives? That will be the beginning of world war three and it will, against our worst nightmares, be billed as a war between Christians/Jews and Islam.

If the US sits back and let's this continue indefinitely (and no one else seems to be stepping up) it will eventually come down to a war between Iraq and Israel one way or another and Iraq will be a smouldering pile of ash while the rest of the world goes at it.

futuro

03-11-2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Yueh

Absolutely true... BUT, we have been running a low level war with Iraq for the last 12 years to keep the Iraqi military weakened.

And I say, continue that low-cost, low-risk, and so far, highly effective policy. It's a lot cheaper in money and lives than an all-out war for both sides. It's also a lot cheaper for us in an international brownie-points sense, in that he's effectively contained, and we haven't pursued what some people could construe as a war of imperialistic agression.

I do agree with you when you say that Saddam is essentially just out to preserve his regime and his country. But, and I know this has been overused lately but it IS relevant, so was Hitler.

No he wasn't. Hitler was out to conquer Europe, than the world. When I see these "Saddam is Hilter" comparisons, I want to scream. Do people know nothing of history? Hitler was a major-league Hall of Fame dictator, Saddam couldn't get out of single A. If we were ranking dictators in history, Saddam doesn't even come to the Idi Amin level, and barely is in the same class as Qadhafi of Libya.

I still am asking myself the question, if it isn't about oil, what is it about?

The question is what will he do when it becomes in his best interest to start selling WMD to terroists to further his goals.

I think the answer is never. An interesting article at the Foriegn Policy magazine website Unnecessary War (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html) contains the following, amongst other salient points.

"Furthermore, giving nuclear weapons to al Qaeda would be extremely risky for Saddam—even if he could do so without being detected—because he would lose all control over when and where they would be used. And Saddam could never be sure the United States would not incinerate him anyway if it merely suspected he had made it possible for anyone to strike the United States with nuclear weapons."

We already know there is absolutely no love lost between Iraq and Israel.

Or Israel and Syria, or Israel and Jordan, or Israel and Saudi Arabia, or Israel and ....
Are we going to attack each and every one of the arab nations just to secure Israel's safety? I really hope not. I really hope that reviving the "peace process" seemingly abandoned by the Bush adminitration could one day bring real peace to the region.

What happens when, in the interest of Palestinian liberation, Iraq lobs another missle into Israel that has a significant impact on Israeli lives? That will be the beginning of world war three and it will, against our worst nightmares, be billed as a war between Christians/Jews and Islam.

I don't think Saddam is all that concerned about Palestinian liberation. I don't think he's going to risk frying his butt over Palestinian question. I think we have more worrisome countries in that department.

As far as the billing for this war is concerned, many arab countries are seeing it as christian versus muslim already. And I think there's a large part of the American public who see it that way too.

If the US sits back and let's this continue indefinitely (and no one else seems to be stepping up) it will eventually come down to a war between Iraq and Israel one way or another and Iraq will be a smouldering pile of ash while the rest of the world goes at it.

I don't see that, for as long as Saddam is likely to be part of that pile of ash, I highly doubt he'd do anything like you are conjecturing.

One more part of the Foreign Policy article :

President Bush’s repeated claim that the threat from Iraq is growing makes little sense in light of Saddam’s past record, and these statements should be viewed as transparent attempts to scare Americans into supporting a war. CIA Director George Tenet flatly contradicted the president in an October 2002 letter to Congress, explaining that Saddam was unlikely to initiate a WMD attack against any U.S. target unless Washington provoked him. Even if Iraq did acquire a larger WMD arsenal, the United States would still retain a massive nuclear retaliatory capability. And if Saddam would only use WMD if the United States threatened his regime, then one wonders why advocates of war are trying to do just that.

TDES

03-11-2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by futuro
No he wasn't. Hitler was out to conquer Europe, than the world. When I see these "Saddam is Hilter" comparisons, I want to scream. Do people know nothing of history? Hitler was a major-league Hall of Fame dictator, Saddam couldn't get out of single A. If we were ranking dictators in history, Saddam doesn't even come to the Idi Amin level, and barely is in the same class as Qadhafi of Libya.

I still am asking myself the question, if it isn't about oil, what is it about?

History ? How many other countries did Qadhafi invade and occupy ?

Saddam 1 Qadhafi 0

Look, I'm not arguing for delusions of Hitler, but aren't you being selective in your criticisms.

Oil ? yeah ok .. and Clinton bombing Iraq was wagging the dog over Monica. Tell you what ... why don't you just say you hate Bush and end it there. It would make what really is the root of your point. Not to say your not entitled to your opinion but I would find it safe to assume your foreign policy concerns were much less critical of the past administrations.

I don't have any problem with anyone debating against war, but when it's blatently based on ideology, it really looses its strength. IMHO

futuro

03-11-2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by TDES

History ? How many other countries did Qadhafi invade and occupy ?

Saddam 1 Qadhafi 0

Okay, you got me there, he's a little above Qadhafi. In any case, Kuwait was still 12 years ago. And he hasn't attempted any more since. Not to defend Saddam, but there is an historical reason for his invading of Kuwait. There is a convoluted and disputed history of Kuwait as an independent state, or a province of Iraq, and given the oil, of course there's going to be disputes. Saddam is not the first ruler of Iraq to assert that Kuwait is historically a province of Iraq, and might not be the last.

Look, I'm not arguing for delusions of Hitler, but aren't you being selective in your criticisms.

About the only parellel I'd concede is that Hitler argued that Austria was a province of Germany, and annexed it, as Saddam tried to do to Kuwait. BUT the big difference is that the world stood by for Hitler's aggression, and didn't for Iraq's. IF the world didn't "liberate" (I use quotes because Kuwait is still a monarchy), Kuwait, and Saddam had used the wealth of the oil to invade other countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc...), then there might be a stronger comparison. However, that did not happen, and there was no indication that Saddam was interested in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Oil ? yeah ok .. and Clinton bombing Iraq was wagging the dog over Monica.

Perhaps so. I'm not defending any president's cowboy actions for any "reason". I'm old fashioned. I think only Congress can declare a war, and we've had three wars and several other military actions since WWII that Congress didn't declare. The founding fathers would be appalled at the power the president exercises these days.

Tell you what ... why don't you just say you hate Bush and end it there. It would make what really is the root of your point. Not to say your not entitled to your opinion but I would find it safe to assume your foreign policy concerns were much less critical of the past administrations.

On the contrary, I wish US presidents would take their finger off the trigger and gain Congress's advice and consent before sending US troops into combat of any kind.

"Hate" Bush? I don't know about that. I certainly don't like many of his policies. I don't like how he turned $200 billion plus surpluses into $300 billion plus deficits. I don't like how he wants to compromise environmental concerns for corporate America's profits. And I certainly don't like his ignoring the domestic ecomonic situation so he can persue a questionable war against a country that hasn't attacked us. As a matter of fact, I'd like 3 hours with him alone, to talk some sense into him. I might even like him as a person, as I do many people I disagree with on policy issues.

Hate him? No... Hate his Policies? Yeppers!

You know, personally, I'd be upset more at a president that has presided over a prolonged recession, am unreasonable war, and environmental rape, than a president that presided over a booming economy, a few "cowboy" military attacks, concern about the enviorment and got a blow job in the Oval office. You ant to see hate for a president? Check out the hatred that Clinton got from the neo-cons.

I don't have any problem with anyone debating against war, but when it's blatently based on ideology, it really looses its strength. IMHO

Um, pro-war, or anti-war, it's all based on ideology. What confuses me the most, is that traditional conservatives have always been against the US as the police of the world, and here they are stumping for this war against a country that hasn't hurt us at all.
Also, most traditional conservatives have always been for fiscal responibility vis-a-vis government spending, and yet are all for a tax cut when we already have massive deficits. What is this "neo-conservative" movement, and from what base is it coming from?

TDES

03-12-2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by futuro
"Hate" Bush? I don't know about that. I certainly don't like many of his policies. I don't like how he turned $200 billion plus surpluses into $300 billion plus deficits.

Come on .. not this same rhetoric. And Bush is responsible for the burst of the tech bubble and the collapse of the stock market.

This is exactly why I threw out the label of "Bush hater". I understand the perceived notion that who is in office at the time the economy is judged gets saddled with the responsibility, but no one can factually argue that Bush didn't inherit an economic avalanche that was just starting to fall. (and no that doesn't mean I place it solely in Clintons lap either)

I don't like how he wants to compromise environmental concerns for corporate America's profits.

So here is where it "is" actually about oil. Like it or not, our country lives on it. Either we start using the oil reserves available to us and relax our need for foreign oil, or we have to stay in bed with countries that can provide it.

Remember extremism in ANY form (religious, environmental, ideological) is ALWAYS bad. There always has to be compromise and not everyone will be happy. Yes Bush should be restrained from letting his friends put oil rigs all over the country, but at the same time the need to supply ourselves with oil isn't going to be magically fixed by hydrogen powered cars.

And I certainly don't like his ignoring the domestic economic situation so he can pursue a questionable war against a country that hasn't attacked us.

He's not exactly ignoring the domestic economy, he's presented a solution that many (including myself) disagree with. And don't think for a second that the rebound that will undoubtedly follow the war won't be conveniently timed for elections. (ok, so even I subscribe to some conspiracy theory)

Questionable war ? Saddam has continuously violated the '93 Cease Fire agreement following the Gulf war and every UN resolution after that. The UN totally shot itself in the foot by not enforcing 1441. Regardless of the wording, they all knew what the intentions were and if they weren't going to follow it through, they shouldn't have voted for it. I'll respect your opinion as to the validity of the war, but I'll offer that the Taliban government never attacked us, Saddam never attacked us in the Gulf war, and yet history has shown those as "just wars".

As a matter of fact, I'd like 3 hours with him alone, to talk some sense into him. I might even like him as a person, as I do many people I disagree with on policy issues.

I just can't help but think that if Clinton would have proposed this war, under the guise of taking out Saddam and liberating the horribly oppressed Iraqi people, that a lot of the protest we see in "this" country wouldn't have happened.

What confuses me the most, is that traditional conservatives have always been against the US as the police of the world, and here they are stumping for this war against a country that hasn't hurt us at all.

What confuses me is why was is okie-dokie to bomb Serbia to protect people from "genocide" and yet doing something similar to a dictator who's doing the same thing (not to mention the UN violations) is unthinkable and immoral.

I use typical right-wing rhetoric against your points, to make a point in itself. Most of the anti-war arguments I hear are basically "I hate (dislike) Bush, and here's a great reason to spout off about it".

None the less, I disagree, but I respect the opinion.

cryptorad

03-12-2003, 10:05 AM

Futuro...

You've saved me from a lot of typing. I can unequivocally say that you are spewing Democratic / Liberal standard boilerplate. So, while I could dig up and counter with plain old Republican / Conservative boilerplate I won't bother filling up this forum with the same drivel you can read everyday, anywhere in the press. While I believe many of the things they say, and I know some of your comments are wrong, there is no need for that level of verbal sparring here. It has no point.

I will take issue with one of your points, since it's not really a political issue other then politics are the probable source of your comment and it's desired implication that Bush spent the country into deficit. I hope that I can get you to at least think about it, since it seems that you 'missed' a lot of what has happened in the United States as far as costs and budgets go lately, and provide some points to ponder for you so can consider that in your ‘futuro’ decisions. ;)

Originally posted by futuro

On the contrary, I wish US presidents would take their finger off the trigger and gain Congress's advice and consent before sending US troops into combat of any kind.

"Hate" Bush? I don't know about that. I certainly don't like many of his policies. I don't like how he turned $200 billion plus surpluses into $300 billion plus deficits. I don't like how he wants to compromise environmental concerns for corporate America's profits. And I certainly don't like his ignoring the domestic ecomonic situation so he can persue a questionable war against a country that hasn't attacked us. As a matter of fact, I'd like 3 hours with him alone, to talk some sense into him. [/B]

First the fact of a 300 billion dollar deficit. Can you find a 'non Democratic' reference for that figure? Clinton quoted the 300 billion deficit in his debates, he arranged with Bob Dole, which themselves make me laugh. Bill is absolutely partisan, and I actually respect that, but he is also a frequent liar. Not someone accused of lying, like Powell and Bush, but a proven liar who for some reason isn't in jail for lying to a Grand Jury. I guess that's politics. I think you can figure what he says is at best half true.

But.. for sake of argument lets assume 300 billion dollars is actually THE current budgetary deficit. Where could that have come from you ask? Please consider the following before you ask something like that again. These were mostly headlining stories in the US you must have missed.

1) Massive US military cuts. It costs money to rebuid an army. Too bad we're missing priceless experience and talent from the first gulf war we can't get back at any price but, that is a Clinton legacy. Iraq is at 40 percent of former strength the liberals love to quote. Their army is 80 percent the size of our army now. By the way.. did I say massive? Least we had a temporary budget surplus. And hell.. that got Billy elected a second time. His first election was courtesy of Ross Perot of course. (Sorry.. shameless partisan dig there).

2) War on terrorism. We ARE at war. Troops in Afghanistan and the like. Aid to allies to fight terrorism. New York City devastated. How much of the current budget was slated to rebuild the pentagon do you think? Yeah.. that's probably a deficit too.

3) Airlines. I will remind you that our airline industry was in trouble PRIOR to Sept. 11th. Now.. it's utterly in chaos. The government is paying fo that now. Or, we are actually. I think it's better then letting it collapse. Air travel is actually one of the symbols of our American freedom.

4) Education. Bush signed into law the largest education spending bill EVER. You must have missed Ted Kennedy absolutely swooning with happiness during that time frame. Yeap.. it was unbudgeted. Go Figure.

5) Department of Homeland Security. This never existed before. So No, it wasn't budgeted. This cost a few bucks to set up. I am quite aware many of the departments already existed, but the total cost of a Department, due to infratstructure, is far larger then the sum of the cost of parts. Personally, I think the reason the Dem's are so upset about Homeland Security spending is that the Republicans are horning in on their territory by creating deficits and government jobs.

6) Economic downturn. Our economy was starting to fall off the 'false' high of the Clinton era before Bush ever took office. I'm not blaming the false high on Clinton. It just happened while he was in office. I don't think Billy really did anything except ride the wave, myself. That was probably a good decision. Now that the facts are starting to be revealed we discover that some of the largest of those 'roaring 90's' were nothing more then faked balance sheets. Fortunately some of those responsible are going to jail but that doesn't change the fact that the economy is down now. We are losing tons of tax revenue from this huge downturn where we now insist that figures are reported factually and actually. Alot harder to do business telling the truth apparently.

Let's recap. War, economic downturn, military rebuilding, increased costs, increased aid, much much larger budget. I'm sure I missed quite a few but that should at least get you started so you can start thinking enough to look for basic information before making such wide sweeping statements like the one I quoted above. None of this was hidden from the US public. In fact, I think it was rather blatantly obvious.

I'm sorry you missed out on all of that. It was a helluva ride for the last few years. Maybe you can pick up and carry on from here and it'll make more sense to you now.

;)

j/k .. don't take it personal.

Mr. Suspicious

03-12-2003, 01:18 PM

Crypto, you're a very misinformed person. France does not have oil stakes in Iraq, it's the US that has them, and quite honnestly, it sure looks like the US oil companies (via their good friend George) don't think the oil has been flowing their direction fast or in great enough quantities in the last decade.

Iraq is at 40 percent of former strength the liberals love to quote. Their army is 80 percent the size of our army now.

look at the CIA fact files... read the numbers... Iraq only has 14 milj inhabitants... counting in children, women and old people. Current force of the US in the Gulf is 250.000 in Kuwait alone. That's one fully trained soldier vs. every 56 women, children and aged men holding pots and pans and a military force, less equiped, armed and trained then the average US citizen in his home on a saturday eve.

Please don't fabricate up things, nor believe everything you are being told in the media. The US is prepping for war, this means: propaganda, propaganda and again propaganda.

Unlike what people want to make you believe, France isn't your enemy, Europe isn't your enemy, "all those who aren't with you unconditionally, aren't against you", and there is no such a thing as pure "evil".

Alwayslost

03-12-2003, 01:43 PM

I disagree with your statement of "Pure Evil" Saddam is the embodiment of Pure Evil. He killed his first man at the age of 13, and rules his country with the Worst of terror methods. There is no political or religious drive for him, only the total domination of every one and thing that he can.

Interesting article from MSNBC: MSN Article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/881770.asp?0cl=c1)

On the subject of where the Oil is going, Keep in mind that the figures you quote above are all DURING the Sanctions, and those are export figures where the oil is being traded for Food and medical supplies.

If Iraq went Dry or stopped selling oil all together, We would be largely unaffected. The majority (about 60%) of our oil comes from Kuait and Saudi arabia, the rest is scattered and domestic.

TDES

03-12-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Suspicious
France does not have oil stakes in Iraq

Not true..

Time Magazine (not exactly a right wing pro-war outlet) reported French and Russian oil contracts. (in addition to MANY other non-oil trades)

and there is no such a thing as pure "evil"

Ummmm ..... guess that depends on your definition of evil huh ?

Let's use this one (Webster)

Main Entry: evil
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High

1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation>

So there's no such thing as pure evil ?

Tell that to those 2 kids found in that basement in NJ, or the 3 found dead in Texas yesterday.

Did Hitler / Pol Pot do work with local 4-H clubs in their off hours or something ?

War / No war / foriegn policy agruments totally aside. I don't see how anyone cannot see Saddam as a purely evil person.

Oh thats right ... if it weren't for "dubbya" NONE of this ever would have happened. Trade Center would still be standing, I'd still have my 401K and the world would be in perfect harmony.

Funny ... for such a malicious, backwards country ass prick, I bet he gets out of office without being impeached ....

I surely didn't vote for the guy and don't keep his picture over my mantle .. but jesus this "bush is the root of all that is wrong in the world" is the lamest argument. Must be utterly blissfull believing that so many of the worlds woes fall on man.

Sorry for the rant .. wasn't entirely directed at you Mr. S.

board Lizard

03-12-2003, 02:54 PM

Crypto, you're a very misinformed person. France does not have oil stakes in Iraq

dumbest.
comment.
yet.

futuro

03-12-2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by TDES

Come on .. not this same rhetoric. And Bush is responsible for the burst of the tech bubble and the collapse of the stock market.

This is exactly why I threw out the label of "Bush hater". I understand the perceived notion that who is in office at the time the economy is judged gets saddled with the responsibility, but no one can factually argue that Bush didn't inherit an economic avalanche that was just starting to fall. (and no that doesn't mean I place it solely in Clintons lap either0

OK, fine. The economy was starting to fall apart. But with respect to the deficits, Bush did that all by himself with his tax cuts and increased spending. Here we were, finally starting to pay the bills for the excesses of the Reagan/Bush years, and W. has to go and put us firmly back in a puddle of red ink, with no end in sight. Perhaps you like that almost 20% of your tax money is going just to pay the interest on that debt, but I certainly don't.

So here is where it "is" actually about oil. Like it or not, our country lives on it. Either we start using the oil reserves available to us and relax our need for foreign oil, or we have to stay in bed with countries that can provide it.

Remember extremism in ANY form (religious, environmental, ideological) is ALWAYS bad. There always has to be compromise and not everyone will be happy. Yes Bush should be restrained from letting his friends put oil rigs all over the country, but at the same time the need to supply ourselves with oil isn't going to be magically fixed by hydrogen powered cars.

It's not just the Anwar thing, Bush has tried to roll back the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. And who do you think benefits from these rollbacks? Not the people of the US, but the absentee owners of those dirty plants. Also, in a little known move, he's opened up pristine national forests to clean-cutting. Let's flatten all the forests! Perhaps you haven't heard of all this, since the Administration has been trying to keep your mind on Iraq.

He's not exactly ignoring the domestic economy, he's presented a solution that many (including myself) disagree with. And don't think for a second that the rebound that will undoubtedly follow the war won't be conveniently timed for elections. (ok, so even I subscribe to some conspiracy theory)

I'm glad you disagree with it. it will lead to more and more deficits as far as the eye can see. And I don't think that the eonomy will rebound after the war thar I hope isn't coming. After all, it didn't rebound after the Gulf War, and that's what cost GHW Bush his second term.

Questionable war ? Saddam has continuously violated the '93 Cease Fire agreement following the Gulf war and every UN resolution after that. The UN totally shot itself in the foot by not enforcing 1441. Regardless of the wording, they all knew what the intentions were and if they weren't going to follow it through, they shouldn't have voted for it. I'll respect your opinion as to the validity of the war, but I'll offer that the Taliban government never attacked us, Saddam never attacked us in the Gulf war, and yet history has shown those as "just wars".

History has yet to judge the total ramifications from either action. At this same amount of time after WWI, people were saing stuff about no more war, we won the last vistory, and other foolish stuff, yet history reveals that the very manner in which WWI ended planted the seeds of WWII.

About the UNSC resolutions, shouldn't we finish old business first, before we start on newer business? There's a small matter of Turkish and Greek troops in Cyprus that has violated UNSC resolutions for many years longer than Iraq has. I don't see anyone crying about the poor opressed people of Cyprus, do you? Oh yeah, they don't have any oil, why should we care? Many of these types of "justifications" for Bush's war on Iraq pretend they exist in a vacuum, and that Iraq and Saddam are the only ones in the world doing these bad things. They're not. They're just the only ones doing these bad things that have oil under their feet.

I just can't help but think that if Clinton would have proposed this war, under the guise of taking out Saddam and liberating the horribly oppressed Iraqi people, that a lot of the protest we see in "this" country wouldn't have happened.

Since this is a situation that didn't happen, that can't happen, it's kind of useless for me to even address it, since anything I say is just a baselss as what you said. If I said that I would be protesting it just the same, you'd say "No you, wouldn't" and we could argue for centuries (given excellent health) about it. And neither of us would ever be able to prove each other wrong.

What confuses me is why was is okie-dokie to bomb Serbia to protect people from "genocide" and yet doing something similar to a dictator who's doing the same thing (not to mention the UN violations) is unthinkable and immoral.

Not that I supported the US going to Serbia, but you're mixing your tenses badly. The Serbia thing was ongoing at the time. Saddam hasn't done anything WMD-wise to anyone in over 12 years, and when he was doing it, the US didn't bat an eye at the time. If it was so appalling that he did that, why didn't Reagan or Bush take him out at the time instead of waiting 12 years for Little George to do it?

I use typical right-wing rhetoric against your points, to make a point in itself. Most of the anti-war arguments I hear are basically "I hate (dislike) Bush, and here's a great reason to spout off about it".

None the less, I disagree, but I respect the opinion.

No, you're missing the point. Most of the anti-war arguements are "I hate Bush's policies, and here's another example of it". I can genuinely say that I hate noone. I dislike several people (ok, several million), but that doesn't stop me from working with, or talking to them. A current radio talk show host, who shall remain nameless lest someone RUSH to judgement, refers to the Junior Senator from New York and her husband using all kinds of hateful terms. If anything, you'll find more hatred of the Clinton's than hatred of Bush.

And thank you for the respect, it seems to be missing in today's political environment. Some people (on both sides) seem to lack the ability to accept that intelligent, well-informed people can come to a different conclusion than them.

gremlinz

03-12-2003, 04:39 PM

Ok I am going to ring in here. I will not present facts for two reasons.

1. I don't think there are facts any more. Every document, report and commentary I am sure has some lean (not sure of spelling) to it one way or the other. So for any one to say on this forum that such and such is fact, with out have doing the research themselves, is deluding themselves. For every fact you state even with the source stated I can find a source that states the exact opposite if I or anyone else looks hard enough. There are no facts out here, only accepted bullshit.

2. I am not here to start a debate, I am just using this forum to vent my oponion on this matter.

To my opinion: I have enjoyed reading the rebuttals that have been posted on here and I think it is great that people can pull a factoid from one source or another. But I have yet to see anything thing thst can not be disputed. Nor have i seen anything concrete that means we should go to war. Kill Osama Bin Laden yes, defeat hitler yes, i saw reasons for that. This UN sactions thing to me is no different then a gang saying this is our neighborhood and if you come in here you have to pay the toll. Governments can not go around making up the rules for every one to play by. It does not work that way. Is Saddam a bad person, depends. He is a very bad person when you compare him to our values and our morales. I would say down right close to the anti-christ. My question to you all is who are to judge him. You a probally thinking i am a jesus freak which I am not. I just don't think we should kill thousands of people b/c one guy is being an ass. If we really want him dead, all it takes is one guy, one sniper rifle, shoot him, bang he dead. Don't kill innocent people to do it, it makes us worse then him. I have always thought the united states was supposed to help protect the little kid on the block from bullies. Who is going to protect the little kids now that we have become the bullies?

Flame
Rebuke or Rebute not sure
Enjoy
I hope I reached at least one person.

Alwayslost

03-12-2003, 05:05 PM

What I find very interesting is a LOT of apples to oranges comparisons.

About the UNSC resolutions, shouldn't we finish old business first, before we start on newer business? There's a small matter of Turkish and Greek troops in Cyprus that has violated UNSC resolutions for many years longer than Iraq has. I don't see anyone crying about the poor opressed people of Cyprus, do you? Oh yeah, they don't have any oil, why should we care? Many of these types of "justifications" for Bush's war on Iraq pretend they exist in a vacuum, and that Iraq and Saddam are the only ones in the world doing these bad things. They're not. They're just the only ones doing these bad things that have oil under their feet.

They also don't have VX or Mustard gas, or ambitions toward a nuclear arsenal, OR close ties to known terrorist groups.

It is also interesting that people like to blame Bush for the current financial problems the US faces. Given the events of the last 2 years I actually think he's going a fine job. I shudder to think what Gore would have done in his place... People have issue with Bush over the politics involved in the election. I am one of those that did not vote, and in my case (in a district where Gore won by like 8:1) it really made no difference.

Our economy was struggling after an explosive growth spurt, that everyone gives credit to Clinton for, (also just a case of coincidence) that HAD to come to a reconing. All the market analysts were predicting it, all the DotComs were operating in a vaccuum, and all it was waiting for was a ripe moment to fall apart.

The current financial problem we face is simply due to the fact that SOME prior president (regan I believe) made the mistake of trying to help Afganistan fight back against the Soviet Union by training Osama Bin Laden in modern guerilla warfare. Silly us that we didn't realize that by helping them we got added to their "The Infadels that set foot on our soil and now must be KILLED" list.

With security now SIGNIFICANTLY more a national issue than at any time in the past, and people struggling to recover from their own financial issues over the last couple years. Too many are just looking to place the blame.

I, for one, am GLAD that we have a president that is stepping up to the challenge and making decisive moves and attempting to solve the problems without having to consult the Polls for every decision and change policy as often as the public changes it's opinion.

Is he the best president we have ever had? Not even close. Is he the worst? Not by a long shot. But I do have this to say.

The country is going through one HELL of a screwed up time at the moment with Al Queda, and Iraq and our own financial issues on top of all the rest. Bush just happens to be at the helm through all this and has to deal with the flack; not an enviable job. I trust him far more than Gore, or many of the other options. Just to put it in perspective, I would trust Dan Quale to do a better job in the current circumstances over Al Gore.

I am not a "Peace Loving Tree Hugger" NOR do I feel that war is the best or first option, but Saddam could care less about the people within the borders of the country he controls. Sanctions will not work. They have accomplished nothing. Inspections will not work if we gave him 2 months or 20 years. It is not up to the INSPECTORS to disarm Iraq, it was up to Iraq.

As long as Saddam is in charge, Iraq will not disarm. But conversely if Saddam were no longer in charge the issue of WMD becomes moot, because it's not the COUNTRY od Iraq that is a threat to stability in the middle east. It is the single man that controls that country in a grip of terror.

futuro

03-12-2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by cryptorad
Futuro...

You've saved me from a lot of typing. I can unequivocally say that you are spewing Democratic / Liberal standard boilerplate. So, while I could dig up and counter with plain old Republican / Conservative boilerplate I won't bother filling up this forum with the same drivel you can read everyday, anywhere in the press. While I believe many of the things they say, and I know some of your comments are wrong, there is no need for that level of verbal sparring here. It has no point.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Here I went to several different sources to get my information, and I'm accused of using some standard "boilerplate" that I have never seen. And seriously, if you can correct me on any points I made, please be my guest. I'm careful to post information that I've verified, and would like to know if I got some wrong information. I'm all for supported evidence from someone making a point opposite mine.

I will take issue with one of your points, since it's not really a political issue other then politics are the probable source of your comment and it's desired implication that Bush spent the country into deficit. I hope that I can get you to at least think about it, since it seems that you 'missed' a lot of what has happened in the United States as far as costs and budgets go lately, and provide some points to ponder for you so can consider that in your ‘futuro’ decisions. ;)

Yuk, yuk. I haven't missed a thing. What I haven't missed is a president that spends and spends and borrows and borrows. I didn't miss this for 8 years, and I wish I wasn't missing it now. (Um? yeah). Unfortunately, we once again have a president who's solutions to every problem is a tax cut. "Oh, we have surpluses? Let's cut taxes!" "Oh, we have a deficit? LEt's cut taxes!" "Oh, there's a war on terrorism? Let's cut taxes!" "Oh, I have a polyp in my rectum? Let's cut taxes!". Whoops, that last one was Reagan, but don't think Bush wouldn't try it too.

First the fact of a 300 billion dollar deficit. Can you find a 'non Democratic' reference for that figure? Clinton quoted the 300 billion deficit in his debates, he arranged with Bob Dole, which themselves make me laugh. Bill is absolutely partisan, and I actually respect that, but he is also a frequent liar. Not someone accused of lying, like Powell and Bush, but a proven liar who for some reason isn't in jail for lying to a Grand Jury. I guess that's politics. I think you can figure what he says is at best half true.

How's the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED Congressional Budget Office for a non-democratic soure?

CBO'S BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
(In billions of dollars)
As of January As of March Change
Receipts 1,922 1,891 -30
Outlays 2,121 2,137 17
Deficit -199 -246 -47

Just FYI, these projections do not include the cost of any action in Iraq, military or otherwise. I hope you accept this source, probably the same one Clinton used Sunday night.

But.. for sake of argument lets assume 300 billion dollars is actually THE current budgetary deficit. Where could that have come from you ask? Please consider the following before you ask something like that again. These were mostly headlining stories in the US you must have missed.

I guess you missed the 1.2 TRILLION (over ten years) tax cut?

1) Massive US military cuts. It costs money to rebuid an army. Too bad we're missing priceless experience and talent from the first gulf war we can't get back at any price but, that is a Clinton legacy. Iraq is at 40 percent of former strength the liberals love to quote. Their army is 80 percent the size of our army now. By the way.. did I say massive? Least we had a temporary budget surplus. And hell.. that got Billy elected a second time. His first election was courtesy of Ross Perot of course. (Sorry.. shameless partisan dig there).

Shameless partisan dig back : Reagan wouldn't have beat Carter without John Anderson. But really, this is something of an amazement to me. You mean that even though Clinton ravaged the military so badly, Bush was able to get it up to speed in just 10 months? On that same CBO site, there's a chart under the historical data section, Historical Budget Data (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table7) that shows that Clinton's so called "massive" cuts were at most 12 or so percent less than Bush's, and Clinton's last few budgets were increasing military spending.

But don't mind that, blame it all on Clinton :rolleyes:

2) War on terrorism. We ARE at war. Troops in Afghanistan and the like. Aid to allies to fight terrorism. New York City devastated. How much of the current budget was slated to rebuild the pentagon do you think? Yeah.. that's probably a deficit too.

I'm curious. Did it ever cross your mind or Bush's mind that perhaps raising taxes to pay for this, or maybe even not cutting taxes might help us pay for this in today's money, and not burden our grandchildren with debt?

3) Airlines. I will remind you that our airline industry was in trouble PRIOR to Sept. 11th. Now.. it's utterly in chaos. The government is paying fo that now. Or, we are actually. I think it's better then letting it collapse. Air travel is actually one of the symbols of our American freedom.

We have the freedom to travel by air, and the airlines also have the freedom to spend themselves into bankruptcy. I don't really think it's our duty as a country to rescue failing airlines, when we refuse to provide basic food and shelter to needy people. Why do the rich owners of failing airlines deserve help, but a single mother with small children doesn't?

4) Education. Bush signed into law the largest education spending bill EVER. You must have missed Ted Kennedy absolutely swooning with happiness during that time frame. Yeap.. it was unbudgeted. Go Figure.

Again, pay as you go. And FYI, Bush has since cut the funding for that education bill, so forget that.

5) Department of Homeland Security. This never existed before. So No, it wasn't budgeted. This cost a few bucks to set up. I am quite aware many of the departments already existed, but the total cost of a Department, due to infratstructure, is far larger then the sum of the cost of parts. Personally, I think the reason the Dem's are so upset about Homeland Security spending is that the Republicans are horning in on their territory by creating deficits and government jobs.

I find it hilarious that conservative are all for adding yet more beauracracy to the federal government. And it might be just me, but that title (Homeland) sends shivers up and down my spine. It smacks of 1984, Brave New World, and dare I say it, The Fatherland...

But if you think it's a good idea, PAY FOR IT! Don't saddle future generations with the bill, while attempting to cut taxes.

6) Economic downturn. Our economy was starting to fall off the 'false' high of the Clinton era before Bush ever took office. I'm not blaming the false high on Clinton. It just happened while he was in office. I don't think Billy really did anything except ride the wave, myself. That was probably a good decision. Now that the facts are starting to be revealed we discover that some of the largest of those 'roaring 90's' were nothing more then faked balance sheets. Fortunately some of those responsible are going to jail but that doesn't change the fact that the economy is down now. We are losing tons of tax revenue from this huge downturn where we now insist that figures are reported factually and actually. Alot harder to do business telling the truth apparently.

As far as the "faked balance sheets" goes, the dummies in the '80's didn't even need that. They were outbidding themselves for companies that were reporting increasing quarterly losses for as far as the eye can see.

But, we're in an economic downturn.... We're losing tax revenues to fund needed programs... Bush's answer? CUT TAXES!

Uh, wait, that didn't work, the economy is getting worse.... Bush's answer? CUT TAXES!

And he'll keep cutting taxes. And cutting taxes, and cutting taxes till the US government defaults on it's obligations, the dollar collapses, and we're all wearing barrels. Good plan.

Let's recap. War, economic downturn, military rebuilding, increased costs, increased aid, much much larger budget. I'm sure I missed quite a few but that should at least get you started so you can start thinking enough to look for basic information before making such wide sweeping statements like the one I quoted above. None of this was hidden from the US public. In fact, I think it was rather blatantly obvious.

I think you're missing something very important. It's slipping my mind.... wait, didn't I mention it above? :D

Oh, yeah, the tax cut.

I'm sorry you missed out on all of that. It was a helluva ride for the last few years. Maybe you can pick up and carry on from here and it'll make more sense to you now.

;)

j/k .. don't take it personal.

I don't take anything personal, especially on a board where my real name is hidden for fear of reprisals from large international corporations.
:D

However, I didn't miss any of that. I recall just two years ago when Bush first proposed his tax cuts, and prudent people were saying "But what if we get into a recession, or some unexpected expense comes up, shouldn't we keep the revenue and pay down the debt \, so that we'll be in a better position should we need the money?"

BUt did anybody listen? Nooo....

Alwayslost

03-12-2003, 05:24 PM

Gremlinz,

Here are a few undisputed facts.

Saddam has used WMD on the people of his own country.

Saddam has imprisoned or outright killed anyone that has spoken out against him.

Saddam has a division (5k) troops that has one function to protect him and carry out his dirty work.

Saddam has and will continue to place his OWN civilians in harms way to make sure the world sees how evil the US is killing his people.

Please go back a page and read the article I posted a link to, it's VERY interesting and seems to be in agreement with most stories and expert opinions on the mindset and expected behaviours of Saddam.

A few more additional facts:

Saddam AGREED to the UNSCOM resolution to disarm. 12 years ago.

One of the aspects of the cease-fire was the southern no fly zone. (that the Iraqis continue to invade rarely but repeatedly shoot at UN air patrols)

Saddam played games with the inspectors for 8 years, restricting access and other Hide-and-seek tactics.

Then he kicked the inspectors out of the country, only to invite them back again 4 years later.

Saddam still has not done so, and has PROVEN that with a continuous flow of "New" information that appears JUST before each new inspection report...

And as a last thing, I don't see that we have become the bullies when our goal is to protect ourselves. We are not pushing anyone into a corner and saying give us your GNP, nor are we charging over a border to claim the country for ourselves as Saddam did to Kuait.

Alwayslost

03-12-2003, 05:40 PM

I'm curious. Did it ever cross your mind or Bush's mind that perhaps raising taxes to pay for this, or maybe even not cutting taxes might help us pay for this in today's money, and not burden our grandchildren with debt?

I'm sorry, I don't buy this line of thinking.

With unemployment at a near record high in the last 10 years, inflation pushed lower and lower to encourage spending to fix the economy of our country. You want to take money OUT of circulation? If you do that, less goods are purchased, less goods are produced, less jobs are needed, and more people become unemployed.

Regan spent us into the ground, and as a teen at the time I heard all the rhetoric from the Democrats telling the kids of our nation that because of the Republicans, your grandchildren will have to pay for what Ronnie is spending on "Star Wars"...

Well, as fate has it, the internet and the information Age kick in just as a Democrat is elected into office and our economy booms. The Democrats take credit and Al Gore tries to claim credit for inventing the internet. I have not stopped laughing at him since.

But LO! and BEHOLD! that massive deficit that Ronnie created was wiped out by things just working themselves out.

Yes, the man in power has the ability to help things out one way or the other, but there is no WAY the the president alone has the power to make or break the economy of our country. (with a few notable exceptions from the past) We are smarter then we were, we have more access to information and are able to stay on top of current events on a global level.

futuro

03-12-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Alwayslost
What I find very interesting is a LOT of apples to oranges comparisons.

They also don't have VX or Mustard gas, or ambitions toward a nuclear arsenal, OR close ties to known terrorist groups.

You pulled my comment that was specifally aimed toward the UN resolutions being presented as an agruement for war. Not fair!

But I'll address your other points, anyway. Sure, he might have biological weapons. So do many other countries. I live in one. And he might be trying to get nuclear weapons. I live in a country that has more nukes than anyone else combined. I'm wondering if you read the stuff about Saddam's well demonstrated sense of self-preservation. Do you really think he's going to insure self-annilalation by actually using wmd against the US?

And this cannard about "close ties" to terrorist groups is just about the biggest lie going. The recent letter purported to be from Bin Laden, while expressing support for the Iragi people, called Saddam "infidel". This is NOT a term of endearment amongst Muslims. :)

It is also interesting that people like to blame Bush for the current financial problems the US faces. Given the events of the last 2 years I actually think he's going a fine job. I shudder to think what Gore would have done in his place... People have issue with Bush over the politics involved in the election. I am one of those that did not vote, and in my case (in a district where Gore won by like 8:1) it really made no difference.

Point one : Many people are blaming Clinton for the current economy, many are blaming Bush. Makes no matter to me, except Bush's answer is to take us from surpluses back to deficits with a tax cut. THAT I blame him for.

Point Two : VOTE, goddammit.

Our economy was struggling after an explosive growth spurt, that everyone gives credit to Clinton for, (also just a case of coincidence) that HAD to come to a reconing. All the market analysts were predicting it, all the DotComs were operating in a vaccuum, and all it was waiting for was a ripe moment to fall apart.

I won't argue the point, except to say that the dotcom bubble bursting wasn't the thing that hosed the economy. It was (and is) the increasing exodus of good paying American jobs leaving the country for places like India. I wonder how long the corporations think they can keep doing this and still have people in the US able to buy their products?

The current financial problem we face is simply due to the fact that SOME prior president (regan I believe) made the mistake of trying to help Afganistan fight back against the Soviet Union by training Osama Bin Laden in modern guerilla warfare. Silly us that we didn't realize that by helping them we got added to their "The Infadels that set foot on our soil and now must be KILLED" list.

It was much more than that. Reagan also aided Saddam with money and contacts to buy weapons so he could fight Iran, too. Both are things that cooler heads might have objected to. IIRC, they did. I have a priceless photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in 1983, I believe. I won't burden the board with the bandwidth. (Hehe, I've probable put more text bytes in the last few days than that picture takes)

With security now SIGNIFICANTLY more a national issue than at any time in the past, and people struggling to recover from their own financial issues over the last couple years. Too many are just looking to place the blame.

No, I'm looking for someone with the correct solutions, not just another tax cut, not just another war, not just another usurping of our freedoms.

I, for one, am GLAD that we have a president that is stepping up to the challenge and making decisive moves and attempting to solve the problems without having to consult the Polls for every decision and change policy as often as the public changes it's opinion.

Silly me. Here I thought we live in a semi-democracy, where the people's opinions count.

Is he the best president we have ever had? Not even close. Is he the worst? Not by a long shot. But I do have this to say.

Those judgments aren't for us to make. We're still too close in time to judge even Reagan's tenure. I'lll bet people in 1929 tought their leaders were quite the 23-skiddo, they way they dealt tough with Germany at the end of WWI. Little did they know that it was exactly that tough treatment that paved the way for Hitler's rise to power. Why do you think we spent so much time and money rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII? At least we learned from history that time.

The country is going through one HELL of a screwed up time at the moment with Al Queda, and Iraq and our own financial issues on top of all the rest. Bush just happens to be at the helm through all this and has to deal with the flack; not an enviable job. I trust him far more than Gore, or many of the other options. Just to put it in perspective, I would trust Dan Quale to do a better job in the current circumstances over Al Gore.

And, of course, this is a totally your opinion, and you could never make a case for it. I think that Jimmy Carter would have been much better than Bush right now, but that's the same type of thing, so I don't even bother saying it. Oh, what the hell.... Perhaps Gore might have put better qualified people in charge of the intelligence community, they would have figured something was up around July of 2001, put surveilence on Atta and his gang, found out what they were up to, and arrested the whole lot on September 10.
Then this whole Iraq thing would just be a minor policy concern, Saddam would have faded quietly into oblivion, and people could be working at the real problems facing the US?

My scenario is just as likely as any you could come up with, and just as useless.

I am not a "Peace Loving Tree Hugger" NOR do I feel that war is the best or first option, but Saddam could care less about the people within the borders of the country he controls. Sanctions will not work. They have accomplished nothing. Inspections will not work if we gave him 2 months or 20 years. It is not up to the INSPECTORS to disarm Iraq, it was up to Iraq.

And it's not up to the US to change the regime, it's up to the people of Iraq.

And speaking of caring less, I saw an article about the Bush administration ensuring Iraqi retirees that their pensions would be taken care of, should the US invade. Why can't Bush do that for his own people?

As long as Saddam is in charge, Iraq will not disarm. But conversely if Saddam were no longer in charge the issue of WMD becomes moot, because it's not the COUNTRY od Iraq that is a threat to stability in the middle east. It is the single man that controls that country in a grip of terror.

Point one : If I was in charge of Iraq, with the US warmachine breathing down my neck, you could be DAMN sure I'd be getting as many WMDs as I could, and threatening to use them immediately upon invasion. Since I certainly can't prove a negative (go ahead, prove you don't have a stack of porno magazines in your house), and everybody is so damn sure I have them, and when they can't find them, I'm accused of hiding them, well, I'm gonna get me some, dammit!

Point two : Do you really think one man is capable of keeping control of an entire country? I don't. I think that there are thousands of people that support Saddam in Iraq, for whatever reasons they have, and we might just put another, even worse one in charge once we invade. Remember, we once thought Bin Laden was a good guy...

The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. And making a policy of pre-emptively changing leaders of countries when we don't like what they're doing is just making the US into the world's biggest bully. Should we continue this unwise course, one day, the entire world might rise up against us, and the conservtives worst nightmare might come true. We might end up as a protectorate of the UN!:mad:

futuro

03-12-2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Alwayslost

I'm sorry, I don't buy this line of thinking.

Not selling you anything...

With unemployment at a near record high in the last 10 years, inflation pushed lower and lower to encourage spending to fix the economy of our country. You want to take money OUT of circulation? If you do that, less goods are purchased, less goods are produced, less jobs are needed, and more people become unemployed.

I was more reffering to not cutting taxes, than increasing them. Bush's first cut did nothing at all to spur the economy, and more will just increase the national debt. But here's a shocker for you. I say, make the high income earners and corporations carry a larger burden than they're carrying now. They're the ones that benefitted from Reagan's and Bush's cuts, and they're the ones deriving more benefit from this great country than the average working man. Even if you want to remain revenue neutral, give a tax cut to working people, and increase correspondingly the taxs on incomes over say $300,000 and unearned income. That's the way to spur economic growth, not throwing more money at people who don't know what to do with what they have now. For example, Microsoft is sitting on $40 BILLION in cash. Giving them another tax break isn't going to make them spend or invest any more, in a climate that they don't see any opportunities in.

Regan spent us into the ground, and as a teen at the time I heard all the rhetoric from the Democrats telling the kids of our nation that because of the Republicans, your grandchildren will have to pay for what Ronnie is spending on "Star Wars"...

Welcome to the furture. 20% of your federal tax dollar goes to paying interest on the debt. And Bush is working on increasing that figure much, much huigher. How much are you willing to pay of your tax dollar in interest to the holders of US notes?
25%? 30%? 50%? Hold on, you tell us when to stop. And oh yeah, that nice Interstate near your house? Well, we have to close it down, becuse we're paying so much interest on the debt that we can't afford to maintain it, since you don't want taxes raised.

Well, as fate has it, the internet and the information Age kick in just as a Democrat is elected into office and our economy booms. The Democrats take credit and Al Gore tries to claim credit for inventing the internet. I have not stopped laughing at him since.

Laugh at this link Article from The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/13640.html)

Also, he never tried to claim "credit for inventing the internet". In the article is his actual quote about "taking the initiative in creating the internet". He was answering a question about his knwoledge of technology and how the goverment can help. He rightly claimed to be the point man in the House and Senate for developing the internet as it is now. Even Newt Gingrich agreed! And in searching for Gingrich's comment, I came upon this very interesting piece (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml)

But LO! and BEHOLD! that massive deficit that Ronnie created was wiped out by things just working themselves out.{/QUOTE]

But LO! and BEHOLD! Nope. Tax increase under Bush I and Clinton kind of helped, don't you think?

And we're still saddled with $6 TRILLION dollars in debt THAT INTEREST MUST BE PAID ON!

[QUOTE]
Yes, the man in power has the ability to help things out one way or the other, but there is no WAY the the president alone has the power to make or break the economy of our country. (with a few notable exceptions from the past) We are smarter then we were, we have more access to information and are able to stay on top of current events on a global level.

No offense, but I think you need to stay a little bit more on top. Deficits are back in a big way, the national debt in increasing the economy is tanking farther and farther down and Bush wants more tax cuts, this time, geared to the RICH! Wonderful, they get extra money to buy the T-bills that we need to fund the tax cut, and we pay them interest!

How do I get off this bus?

gremlinz

03-13-2003, 09:37 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alwayslost
[B]Gremlinz,
_____________________________
Here are a few undisputed facts.
_____________________________

I am ready
______________________________________________
Saddam has used WMD on the people of his own country.
______________________________________________

Sorry to be a prick on this one but how does that make a threat to us. How is this our problem. I feel if we are going to crush a horrible regime we should crush all horrible regimes, not just the profitable one. Also where is you research on this.

__________________________________________________
Saddam has imprisoned or outright killed anyone that has spoken out against him.
__________________________________________________ _

You just spoke out against, lord knows half the people in the known world do. This point is not a fact.
__________________________________________________ __
Saddam has a division (5k) troops that has one function to protect him and carry out his dirty work.
__________________________________________________ _

How are we different. Yet again where is your research or at least a source here.

__________________________________________________ __
Saddam has and will continue to place his OWN civilians in harms way to make sure the world sees how evil the US is killing his people.
__________________________________________________ __

Ok this is not a fact you can not predict the future so stop trying. If we kill innocents ceivilians we are evil deal with it. This also does not proof for war, if we were not fucking with him he would not have to put people in his way.

__________________________________________________ _
Please go back a page and read the article I posted a link to, it's VERY interesting and seems to be in agreement with most stories and expert opinions on the mindset and expected behaviours of Saddam.
__________________________________________________ __

Read that and more. I am not saying Saddam is not a bad man. I'm saying we are acting no better.

__________________________________________________ __
A few more additional facts:

Saddam AGREED to the UNSCOM resolution to disarm. 12 years ago.
_________________________________________________

This is the first solid fact presented. But did he do so of his own free will or did we make him sign in under threat of wiping is country off the face of the planet.

__________________________________________________ _
One of the aspects of the cease-fire was the southern no fly zone. (that the Iraqis continue to invade rarely but repeatedly shoot at UN air patrols)
__________________________________________________ _

This is true also, can we garuntee though that those planes were shot down by his orders??

__________________________________________________ __
Saddam played games with the inspectors for 8 years, restricting access and other Hide-and-seek tactics.
__________________________________________________ __

If i had the USA coming down on me I would too.

"My mom didn't give me any lunch money today"

__________________________________________________ _
Then he kicked the inspectors out of the country, only to invite them back again 4 years later.
__________________________________________________ _

Yeah when we threatend to give him a curb stomping :)

"Ok i have my money it is in my backpack"

__________________________________________________
Saddam still has not done so, and has PROVEN that with a continuous flow of "New" information that appears JUST before each new inspection report...
__________________________________________________ _

Not sure exactlly what you are talking about here.

__________________________________________________ _
And as a last thing, I don't see that we have become the bullies when our goal is to protect ourselves. We are not pushing anyone into a corner and saying give us your GNP, nor are we charging over a border to claim the country for ourselves as Saddam did to Kuait.
__________________________________________________ _

OMFG!!!! Bullies force themselves or what they want on a person

US forces our rules and even our theory of democracy on that country. That is what we are trying to do set them up to be a democracy. Democracy is supposed to be about freedom and the right to choose. Where is the freedom in saying here you will use this system of government. Our founding fathers are turning in the grave at how we have become. We our forcing our will on other ocuntires all the time. We are bullies. So you have maybe 3 at the very most solid facts. You also state no research or even sources. Your just spewing propaganda at me, that still has absolutly no reason for us to attack. If i want propaganda I can read the web if you want to debate things, then do it properly :)

Seriously folks I do not mean to sound mean but I am very sick of the proganda that gets flown at me every time I turn on a tv read a news paper, even go web surfing, and even when I go to lunch.

Here are some definitions for you folks.
__________________________________________________ __
free·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frdm)
n.
The condition of being free of restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.

The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).
__________________________________________________ _

Which we are not giving to Iraw but taking away.

__________________________________________________ _
de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
__________________________________________________ __

What we do not have any more and something you can not force some one to use.

__________________________________________________ __

. bul·lied, bul·ly·ing, bul·lies
v. tr.
To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner. See Synonyms at intimidate.
To make (one's way) aggressively.

bully

\Bul"ly\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Bullied; p. pr. & vb. n. Bullying.] To intimidate with threats and by an overbearing, swaggering demeanor; to act the part of a bully toward.

For the last fortnight there have been prodigious shoals of volunteers gone over to bully the French, upon hearing the peace was just signing. --Tatler.

Syn: To bluster; swagger; hector; domineer.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

bully

\Bul"ly\, v. i. To act as a bully.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
__________________________________________________ __

Wow thats us :)

Alwayslost

03-13-2003, 10:17 AM

Unfortunately I'm wayy too tired to reply at length.

Futuro,

Good points!

/bow

gremlinz,

/boggle

/sigh

puppet

03-13-2003, 11:45 AM

I am sure that if a person has their mind up, this post will not change it. However you asked for some proof. I am hoping that you will read these articles and at least shift your position some. I don’t want to go to War, I wish we could avoid it. But we have come to a point where it looks like we have to force our hand. I do feel sorry for the loss of life that will be felt in Iraq and to our service members (I believe Iraq will use WMD in the war, you know the ones Iraq says they don’t have) I hope that after the War the USA will help rebuild Iraq and help the citizens. But we don’t have a very good track record here.

I have included your reply and the statement you were replying to in my quotes since it would not be clear what you were responding to without the original statement. I hope this is not to confusing to read.

______________________________________________
Saddam has used WMD on the people of his own country.
______________________________________________

Sorry to be a prick on this one but how does that make a threat to us. How is this our problem. I feel if we are going to crush a horrible regime we should crush all horrible regimes, not just the profitable one. Also where is you research on this.

Here are a few links from outside sources that could be used as research on this.

Human Rights Watch report (http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/01/iraq-memo.htm)

And a quote from that site:

“Human Rights Watch is fully aware of the toll of recurrent and horrific human rights abuses committed by the government of Iraq. For this reason, we urge the Security Council to establish an international criminal tribunal, such as those the Council has authorized for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to indict and bring to justice Iraqi government officials and former officials against whom there is credible evidence of responsibility for acts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The tribunal's writ should include the 1988 campaign to evacuate the Kurdish countryside as a site for anti-regime insurgency, in which the government destroyed more than 2,000 villages and a dozen towns, seized every Kurd in the "prohibited area," trucked off an estimated 100,000 civilians for execution, and used chemical weapons against its own citizens”

Guardian report on Human Rights Violations (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/12/02/hrdossierenglish.pdf)

__________________________________________________

Saddam has imprisoned or outright killed anyone that has spoken out against him.
__________________________________________________
_

You just spoke out against, lord knows half the people in the known world do. This point is not a fact.

The original poster may not have been specific enough for you but I have some facts for you. Many other examples can be found in reports that detail his human rights violations

Report from the British government (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/02/iraq_report021202)

From the Guardian link provided above.

Saddam has, through the RCC, issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties (amputation, branding, cutting off of ears, or other forms of mutilation) for criminal offences. In mid-2000, the RCC approved amputation of the tongue as a new penalty for slander or abusive remarks about the President or his family. These punishments are practiced mainly on political dissenters.

__________________________________________________
__
Saddam has and will continue to place his OWN civilians in harms way to make sure the world sees how evil the US is killing his people.
__________________________________________________
__

Ok this is not a fact you can not predict the future so stop trying.

This is a fact. This is not the first conflict with Saddam, he has used the tactic of “human shields” before. In fact some people from other countries have flow to Iraq for the sole purpose of acting as shields. The link below provides a few details, it also mentions Saddams human rights violations along with his use of chemical weapons.

Physicians for Human Rights Statement on War in Iraq (http://www.phrusa.org/research/iraq/122302.html)

gremlinz

03-13-2003, 01:10 PM

Puppet excellent post I did read every post you included and some I had read before. I am not in any way saying that saddam isn't a horrible person. I know this every one does. But, there are many horrible people in the world that some one should do something about. But we have not touched any of those. I have a few specific issues.

1. We go in kill him, win war, and setup new government. This new government will be a democracy of some sorts and will "help" the people of Iraq. I just wonder who gave us the right to decide how other countries run their governments. What we are doing is going in wiping out their homes, business, churches and most importantly family memebers and then forcing our government upon them. This is my issue. What if the people of Iraq do not want their country set up as a democracy, what if they want a monarchy or dictatorship. We are taking over that country and forcing them to act how we want them to or what we feel is in their best intrest. We are dictating what we want and become a dictatorship over that country. We are not freeing them. We are making them what we want them to be.

2. We are not in the long run helping the people of Iraq. Part of the reason most of the people in the USA love the US is because family members have died to give us the freedom we have. We fought for it and one. We earned this democracy and it was our choice. This fight and bloodshed has nade us strong and has given us something to rally around and feel pride in. When the people of Iraq think of their democracy they will think of their families dead and how the US set up their government like a construction company throws up a track house. If we want to help the people end the tyranny of their country, then we help them, we show them how, we do not do it for them. They will not learn the value of what they have, nor will they appreciate it.

I do not disagree with the war. I know eventually it will happen. I understand that Saddam needs to go down. The questions I have is why him and not some other dictator? Why are we so quick to jump in on it? Why are the American people not being allowed to lead our country like we were supposed to be, instead of being lead by the president. How can this war be called with out congress's support? Why is it that every time a war happens with our countires our personal freedoms get lesser and lesser? How come we never hear anything in the news about the french thoughts on the matter or any one else's thoughts? We are given the views of our country and the british and we do not get a whole picture. We get to see it from the side of the people who want war. I want to see both side of the pictures, i want all the information and be allowed to chose wether or not he is such a hydra that we need to go in and stomp him out. As of this current time he has done nothing that I have seen proof of to hurt us? At least not recently. So when I ask for proof that is what I want. I want to see the issue between Iraq and the US. Where is the threat. The WMD's is not something I would like to hear unless he is pointing them at us. Becuase jumping and beating the hell out of some one becuase you thought they might beat you up is not an answer or an intelligent thing to do. If any one can answer my questions please do so.

puppet

03-13-2003, 01:49 PM

1) I have no idea how the government of Iraq will be setup after the War. I am sure we will back someone who is friendly with the USA. But the great thing about a democratic government is that if the people of Iraq don’t like him then they can vote someone they do like into office on the next election. The USA does not have a good record on puppet governments but you have to remember that we helped re-build and stabilize Japan and Germany after WWII.

2) The people of Iraq have suffered more than we did in the New World before we broke away. I believe that the people of Iraq will appreciate freedom as much as anyone can. If you would like you can look into the difference between the ruling party’s in Iraq vs. the Ruling party over the New World. Find out what would have happened if the New World was run like present day Iraq

I understand that Saddam needs to go down. The questions I have is why him and not some other dictator? Why are we so quick to jump in on it?

There are many bad people\dictators in this world. I think if you read the information provided before you will see why we are after Saddam. Many people do some of the things that he does but I don’t know of any that does as much as he does for the same length of time. Many people ask why we are going to War with Iraq over Nuclear weapons when N Korea has then and has said they will use them. N Korea has many problems and has had them for awhile. But they have just stepped up the problems by withdrawing from many key agreements and such. The administration believes that they can solve N Koreas problems thru negotiations and avoid a War with N Korea. Remember that N Korea has nukes and the means to deliver them to remote locations (not believed to be able to hit the mainland of the US at this point I don’t believe), a war with them could get very ugly very fast. We are trying to stop Saddam from reaching this level.

We are also not “quick to jump in” this cat and mouse game with Saddam has been going on for a very long time.

How come we never hear anything in the news about the french thoughts on the matter or any one else's thoughts? We are given the views of our country and the british and we do not get a whole picture. We get to see it from the side of the people who want war. I want to see both side of the pictures, i want all the information and be allowed to chose wether or not he is such a hydra that we need to go in and stomp him out

I don’t know what news you watch but I hear about the thoughts of the French all to often. I also see about all the Anti-war protests across the USA and the World. Most talk shows have a person on that represents both sides of an argument.

I mean no offence but it sounds like you want everything spoon feed to you. All the information you need is out there, you need to go find it. But remember that many places that post their thoughts on the War (or anything else) sometimes have an agenda, This applies to both sides of any topic.

The WMD's is not something I would like to hear unless he is pointing them at us. Becuase jumping and beating the hell out of some one because you thought they might beat you up is not an answer or an intelligent thing to do.

(I am NOT trying to make a tie between Iraq and Al Quada here)

Did Al Quada have a WMD pointed at us before 9-11? The old days are gone, it does not take a ballistic missile pointed at us to be a threat anymore (it does help though) The reports I linked before show that Saddam does not have any problems using WMD. Would you like to wait until he has the tech to manufacture long range Ballistic weapons with a nuclear warheads and he launches one. I agree we are on a slippery slope and must be careful but to me the facts seem clear.

Not that it is a huge deal but Iraq does regularly target our planes patrolling the Iraq no fly zone with Radar. Once targeted they can be locked for a missile launch. I don’t know how often they fire on us and I have not heard of a hit for a long time but it is a threatening stance and against the UN resolutions. Granted when the Rader station goes hot we can target them also and we do destroy them.

##Edit## corrected spelling of threatening thanks to Alwayslost quote

Alwayslost

03-13-2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Futuro
And this cannard about "close ties" to terrorist groups is just about the biggest lie going. The recent letter purported to be from Bin Laden, while expressing support for the Iragi people, called Saddam "infidel". This is NOT a term of endearment amongst Muslims.

This is true, BUT remember Osama Bin Laden was MORE than happy to accept the help of another group of Infidels when they were fighting the Soviet Union. I have ZERO doubt that if Bin Ladin could get VX from Saddam to use against the US (his biggest enemy at the time) that he would. "The enemy of my enemy ..." and all that. I also have LESS doubt that Saddam would be willing to CONTINUE to sponsor terrorist acts to further his power.

Originally posted by gremlinz
2. We are not in the long run helping the people of Iraq. ... This fight and bloodshed has nade us strong and has given us something to rally around and feel pride in. When the people of Iraq think of their democracy they will think of their families dead and how the US set up their government like a construction company throws up a track house. If we want to help the people end the tyranny of their country, then we help them, we show them how, we do not do it for them. They will not learn the value of what they have, nor will they appreciate it.

What part of "They fear for their lives daily" do you not understand? I have seen interviews with Iraqis that have come to America, I have yet to see an interview with an Iraqi that has any love for Saddam. I also heard that if you are alive today and a citizen of Iraq, you have lost at least one relative to Saddam's Regieme. Yes this is HEARSAY, but when enough people say it that have FLED from the source of their fear, I tend to believe it.

If you seriously think there is any possibility of the US teaching the "average" Iraqi citizen how to overthrow Saddam let me give you a far simpler task: Teach the chickens in the coop how to kill the mountain lion that breaks in and eats them. That has a better chance of success.

Originally posted by gremlinz
Why are the American people not being allowed to lead our country like we were supposed to be, instead of being lead by the president.

With a population of about 281 million people you have to elect people to make the decisions for us all...

Originally posted by gremlinz
How can this war be called with out congress's support?

It was and is.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gremlinz
[B]How come we never hear anything in the news about the french thoughts on the matter or any one else's thoughts?

You have internet, go to their websites, get their news, They translate it to english.

Originally posted by gremlinz
We are given the views of our country and the british and we do not get a whole picture. We get to see it from the side of the people who want war. I want to see both side of the pictures, i want all the information and be allowed to chose wether or not he is such a hydra that we need to go in and stomp him out.

If you were President of the US you WOULD have all the information. CIA, NSA, FBI, and all the rest would give you daily breifings.

So YOU want to be the deciding vote? Now you are leaving out the remainder of the other 281 mil US citizens.

dbrot

03-13-2003, 02:29 PM

:D I read this and thought is was kind of interesting. I guess it helps when mommy and daddy are influential.

Bush's stance on affirmative action belies a student who received some conspicuous legs up.

by Peter Dreier

President George W. Bush was an affirmative-action beneficiary, at Yale University and then at Harvard Business School. Now he wants the University of Michigan to end its policy of considering applicants' race, among other factors, in admitting students. According to Bush, this approach "amounts to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students based on their race."

Bush was admitted to Yale in 1964 under an affirmative-action policy for children of alumni -- what colleges call a "legacy" system. legacy preferences still exist, of course, at most selective schools, including Michigan and Yale. But they no longer carry quite the same weight they did at schools such as Yale, Princeton University and Harvard University when Bush was applying to colleges in 1964.

The president never released his high-school grades from Andover -- an elite New England prep school that his father had also attended -- or his SAT scores. But several years ago, The New Yorker got hold of Bush's Yale records and discovered that he scored a 566 on the verbal SAT and a 640 on the math SAT -- 180 points below the median score for his Yale classmates.

From what is known about Bush's academic performance at Andover, it is doubtful that he would have been admitted to Yale unless his father (at the time a Texas businessman running for the U.S. Senate in a race he eventually lost) and grandfather (Prescott Bush, a former Republican U.S. senator who represented Connecticut from 1952 to 1962) had been Yalies (from, respectively, the classes of 1948 and 1917). In fact, as a student, Bush studied in the Yale library's Prescott Walker Bush Memorial Wing.

Back then, Yale's student body was disproportionately made up of white, upper-class students from the nation's most elite prep schools. But without a Yale legacy, even a student from the most select private high school needed excellent grades and SAT scores to get in. Like other Ivy League colleges, Yale at the time had its own criteria for "diversity." It looked for students with strong athletic abilities or special skills such as musical or theatrical talent, as well as students from different parts of the country. These non-legacy students had to meet Yale's basic academic standards, of course, though the college no doubt rejected plenty of one-dimensional students who may have had higher grades and SAT scores but lacked other qualities Yale was looking for. (At the time, however, Yale made little effort to recruit minorities. In the fall of 1964, there were only 28 African-American students out of 4,093 undergraduates.)

Other than being a legacy, Bush had no qualities that would have gotten him into Yale. Had he been a National Merit Scholar finalist, an outstanding athlete or actor or editor of the Andover newspaper, or had he perhaps organized his fellow students to tutor underprivileged kids, we probably would know by now. In fact, he was a mediocre student -- he never made the honor roll -- and demonstrated no particularly outstanding talents to warrant being admitted to Yale. He was head cheerleader during his senior year, organized the school's stickball league and played baseball, basketball and football. But, unlike his father, who was an outstanding baseball player, W. was not a star athlete, and certainly not good enough to be recruited by Yale's coaches. Perhaps Yale was looking for students from west Texas to add some cultural and regional diversity, but, if so, why accept a kid from Midland, Texas who had attended prep school in Massachusetts?

It probably didn't hurt that three of the seven members of Yale's admissions committee who reviewed Bush's application had been in Skull and Bones, the exclusive college club that also included W.'s grandfather and father among its members (and would later "tap" W. for membership during his junior year). The fact is that, just a few years later, when Yale began admitting women and tightened its legacy policy, it is unlikely that Bush - even with all his connections - would have gotten in.

And has anyone asked the president how he got into Harvard Business School, the nation's premier training ground for corporate executives? We like to think that the school selects students based on meritocratic criteria: college grades, scores on the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT) or some experience in the real world of business that would demonstrate the skills necessary to run a major corporation.

But Bush's Yale transcript shows that he was a C student. He got particularly poor grades in political science and economics. In his freshman year - the only year for which The New Yorker obtained rankings - Bush was in the 21st percentile of his class. In other words, 79 percent of the students had better grades than he did. Indeed, when he gave a speech at Yale's 2001 commencement ceremony, he joked, "to the C students I say, you, too, can be president of the United States."

Bush has never released his GMAT scores. During the five years between his graduation from Yale in 1968 and his application to Harvard Business School in 1973, he had no obvious career trajectory or major accomplishments. In 1970 he worked on his father's second unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate. He had never worked in the business world except for nine months in 1971, when he was a management trainee with Stratford of Texas, an agricultural and ranching company. In 1973 he worked for nine months as a counselor at the Professional United Leadership League, a program that provided mentors from professional sports leagues to Houston's inner-city children.

During this five-year period, Bush served part time in the Texas National Guard. And even his acceptance to the National Guard's pilot-training program required special treatment. Bush scored only 25 percent on a pilot-aptitude test, the lowest acceptable grade. Nevertheless, commanders of the Texas Guard, aware that Bush's father was then a U.S. congressman from Texas, swore W. in as an airman the same day he applied.

In 1973 he was discharged from the National Guard in order to enter Harvard Business School. By that time, Bush had already been rejected in his home state by the University of Texas' law school because of his lackluster performance at Yale. So when the admissions directors at Harvard Business School looked at Bush's transcript and application, they must have seen something that allowed them to take a chance on an applicant who could charitably be labeled an "at-risk" student. (And it probably wasn't that he'd been president of his fraternity, Delta Kappa Epsilon, known as the hardest-drinking jock house at Yale.)

At the time Bush's application landed at Harvard Business School, Bush Senior - who had recovered from his defeated bids for U.S. Senate in 1964 and 1970 and was by then a former congressman from Texas, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former U.S. diplomatic liaison to China - was chairman of the Republican National Committee. Might Senior's fame have played a role?

It isn't clear if the business school's forms asked if applicants had ever been arrested. But if so, Bush's application might have stood out - for the wrong reasons. He was not arrested for protesting for civil rights or against the Vietnam War. Rather, as a 20-year-old Yale junior, Bush was arrested for stealing a wreath from a New Haven hotel. He was charged with disorderly conduct, though the charge was later dropped. Perhaps Harvard's admissions committee saw this experience as good training for someone who might later run a Texas oil company or, as president, have to decide how to deal with such corporate lawbreakers as Enron and WorldCom executives.

Regardless of his own privileged background - and the obvious ways that Yale and Harvard ignored his grades and test scores when admitting him - Bush is entitled to his opinions about affirmative action. What he seems to misunderstand is that Michigan's affirmative-action policy does not allow the admittance of students who are unqualified or unable to handle the academic work. No selective school simply uses grades and test scores in deciding which students to accept. Colleges accept students whose high-school grades and SAT scores meet a basic threshold, and then give extra points to students with various characteristics, based on such factors as athletic or artistic ability; urban, suburban or rural background; demonstrated commitment to public service; attendance at public, private or religious high schools; and ethnic and racial backgrounds. All of this is done merely in the name of creating a diverse student body, a goal that Bush says he supports.

Bush, a mediocre student, got into Andover, Yale, Harvard Business School and the Texas National Guard's pilot-training program because he was rich and well-connected. His subsequent business career - including his early efforts to start an oil company, the financial favoritism that allowed him to buy part of the Texas Rangers baseball team with hardly any of his own money, the political favoritism that allowed him to persuade the city of Arlington, Texas, to subsidize a new stadium - was due in large part to his family and social connections. These connections laid the groundwork for Bush to enter politics and helped catapult him to the presidency.

The University of Michigan's affirmative-action program seeks to help qualified students without these sorts of connections - indeed, to help some students who have had to cope with considerable economic and social disadvantages, including racism - in order t level the playing field.

Bush says he wants college admissions to be "race neutral" because racial background isn't something you earn, it's something into which you're born. So the question for Bush is whether he would also have wanted college admissions to be "legacy neutral" for the exact same reasons - and where in life he would be right now if they were.

Alwayslost

03-13-2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by puppet
Not that it is a huge deal but Iraq does regularly target our planes patrolling the Iraq no fly zone with Radar. Once targeted they can be locked for a missile launch. I don’t know how often they fire on us and I have not heard of a hit for a long time but it is a treating stance and against the UN resolutions. Granted when the Rader station goes hot we can target them also and we do destroy them.

Additional Note:

Those radar units are MOBILE and usually parked at churches and schools, so that when HARM's take them out there are civilian casualties that they can show to the world.

And in a delayed reply to an earlier statement:

can we garuntee though that those planes were shot down by his orders??

NOTHING happens in Iraq without Saddam's express permission/knowledge/orders, not if those passing out the orders want to live long.

cryptorad

03-13-2003, 06:34 PM

Seems I can contribute one little factoid to help define the fine line of 'targeting' and 'firing'.

According to the "rules of engagement" of international law, locking a targeting radar signal onto an aircraft is an offensive act and is considered an attack. A targeting radar works quite differently then a radar that is just scanning and tracking you .. or showing your path. There is only one reason to lock a targeting radar onto you.. and that is to direct the radar guided missle into you 20 seconds later. Since their is no time or ability to know if the missle is going to be launched, you have to assume it is going to be and take immediate defensive / evasive countermeasures. This is why it is considered an agressive action and an attack.

Many liberals / dems state that the US broke the cease fire by being the first to fire. Actually.. Iraq did by targeting our aircraft. Which resulted in our destroying the AA site. Typical protocol and something which is to be expected if you know how this stuff works. Saddam does know how it works. The Lib/dems also make the statement that the 'no fly zones' don't actually exist. Because we 'just made them up'.

Well, we DID just make them up. And they DO actually exist. Ask Iraq. We made them up in an attempt to stop the genocide Saddam was inflicting on people revolting in his country against his rule. He was using chemical biological weapons on them to keep them under control (dead people are considered under control I guess).

This is why there is a game of cat and mouse in those 'no fly' zones all the time. Iraq claiming 'you can't do that' and certain people in this world backing him up (<--- liberal democrats /French /some of the UN). We (the US) doing it anyway. Which I see as our right under spoils of war. WE fought the war.. we issued the cease fire rules. Our rules.. our ball.. our game. Don't like it.. tough. Should have thought of the consequences before you took us on.

So .. he is always setting up AA sams and targetting our aircraft. We keep shooting them. He is simply doing it to find the weak link. He's 'practicing' the AA setup so he can find a way to make his AA effective by finding SOME way that we don't just instantly destroy his AA missles as soon as they lock on. Practice makes perfect.. AND.. if he manages to find a trick that works.. that spells big trouble for our air superiority in any fight.

Based on the frequency of his AA attacks of last month I personally think he is on to something. He wouldn't be wasting that many AA batteries if he didn't have a trick that is almost working for him. Or maybe it IS working and we (the general public of the US) just don't know it yet. If that is true, and the US military hasn't figured it out, then alot of US pilots are going to pay for it, maybe with their lives.

Just FYI.

Vive la France! Vive la Liberals!

cryptorad

03-13-2003, 10:22 PM

Futuro,

I really should let it lie.. because this is just more useless info. Your statements of facts are slanted.. as I suppose mine must appear to you.

One quick comment on your Military questions. No.. Bush had 10 months and NO.. the military is NOT up to speed yet. It's still a shell of what it was, but it's better then it was in 1995. Yes Clinton started the rebuild himself. Just a tiny bit though.. nothing like Bush has done. BUT.. alot of the money Bush has already budgeted for it's rebuilding (it will take time). The original discussion was about budgets.

If you will recall.. 1995 was the year when it was OBVIOUS Iraq was continuing to develop WMD and Saddam's son exposed the VX case embarassment to the UN inspectors (they had no clue). THAT was the time to go into Iraq and do something.. perfect timing, perfect reason, BUT.. our military was NOT in a position to do it. Yeap.. couldn't do it because they were a shell. You'll never find that bragged about by Billy boy or his cronies.. you can betcha. Lot's of people say Bill had no balls to go in.. but that is a crock. Bill Clinton never gave two flying shits about going into somewhere if he wanted to and he was never afraid to let other people go fight. He had an aversion to joining the military himself (buncha losers .. or something) which is why he called Canada home for a period of time.

However.. here is one for you to read. I remember you said you lacked 'proof'. Yes, it's a State Department document. I'm sure it's just all lies based on lies. It's either all lies.. or your wrong.

Which do you chose?

The following is the text of a State Department fact sheet summarizing findings of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) report on Unresolved Disarmament Issues relating to Iraq, presented to the U.N. Security Council on March 7, 2003:

This fact sheet carefully reviews UNMOVIC's report (the "Cluster Document") delivered on March 7, 2003 before the U.N. Security Council concerning the Iraqi government and its refusal to carry out full and complete disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction.

The report demonstrates that Iraq and its leadership have pursued a consistent strategy of concealing its weapons of mass destruction and deceiving inspectors in direct violation of its international obligations. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction remain a direct and active threat to their neighbors and to the international community.

History Repeats Itself: Iraq's Strategy To Deny, Deceive and Conceal Continues

• UNMOVIC's document lays bare that Iraq's strategy today has not changed. Inspectors are faced with deception, concealment and changing stories.

• Inspectors discovered that Iraq failed to declare an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle that is based on a system that Iraq admitted to UNSCOM was intended to deliver chemical or biological agent.

• Inspectors discovered cluster bombs and sub munitions that appeared designed to deliver chemical or biological agents. Contrary to initial Iraqi statements, a number of bombs and over 100 sub munitions were found.

• Iraq has failed to provide inspectors with supplier information about foreign-procured items. These items include gyroscopes, chemicals and laboratory equipment — all apparent weapons of mass destruction-dual-use items.

• Iraq claims that a 50-ton trailer that it illegally imported for use as a missile launcher was "stolen." This is the same "stolen" story that Iraq has used in the past for weapons of mass destruction items such as biological growth media.

• UNMOVIC has concluded that documents Iraq provided regarding production of botulinum toxin and Iraq's capability to dry biological weapon agents provided no new information. Just the same, tired story Iraq told UNSCOM.

Iraq's History Of Denial, Deception And Concealment

• On nearly 30 occasions, Iraq refused — despite repeated requests from the international community — to provide credible evidence to substantiate its claims that they do not possess arms or have disarmed fully and completely.

• The document cites 17 instances when inspectors uncovered evidence directly contradicting Iraqi claims of innocence.

• Iraq has admitted numerous attempts to mislead inspectors by lying or planting false evidence during the inspection process.

• Time and again, Iraq successfully concealed its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs from the earlier inspection teams (UNSCOM) — only changing its story in order to fit the facts. For example:

• Only in 1995 did Iraq declare its offensive biological weapons program, after publicly denying its existence for four years.

• Only in 1997 did inspectors discover evidence of production completed on prohibited missiles in 1992.

• Only in 1997 did Iraq declare an additional 187 pieces of specialty equipment used to produce deadly chemical agents.

• Only in 2003 when confronted by inspectors, did Iraq turn over the "Iraqi Air Force" document that contradicts Iraq's chemical weapons declaration — by disclosing an additional 6,500 bombs with 1,000 tons of the blistering agent mustard gas.

• This document makes clear that Iraq has the inherent capability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons and literally tens of thousands of delivery systems (missiles, munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles).

Additional Examples of Iraq's Strategy of Deception and Concealment:

Anthrax

• After lying for four years, Iraq admitted in 1995 to producing nearly 8,500 liters of anthrax.

• Furthermore, the Iraqi's noted that only one facility was involved in the production of anthrax and that none of the biological agent was produced in 1991. Moreover, Iraq said it filled 50 R-400 bombs and five missile warheads with anthrax.

• UNMOVIC's report recollects UNSCOM's conclusions:

• Iraq's anthrax production potential could have been as much as 25,000 liters.

• Evidence that a second facility produced anthrax in 1991.

• Evidence that more than five warheads were filled with anthrax.

• That there is no reliable or final assessment of how many R-400 bombs were filled with anthrax.

• UNMOVIC concludes:

• About 10,000 additional liters of anthrax were not destroyed and may still exist.

• "Iraq currently possesses the technology and materials...to enable it to produce anthrax."

• By 1993, Iraq was successfully drying large quantities of a bacteria that "could be a model for anthrax."

• As the Secretary noted on February 5, Iraq has developed a mobile biological agent production capability. In only one month's time, these mobile units can produce the same, or more, dry anthrax equivalent to the 10,000 liters Iraq has hidden from inspectors.

VX

• Iraq's Chemical Weapons declarations in April 1991 and June 1992 did not disclose Iraq's VX program. Only in March 1995 did Iraq admit to having produced large-scale amounts of VX — one of the most dangerous chemical agents created.

• Iraq claims never to have successfully weaponized VX.

• UNMOVIC's document concludes:

• Iraq provided false and misleading declarations in order to retain production equipment specifically modified to produce VX.

• Direct physical evidence contradicts Iraq's claim that it never weaponized VX.

• Iraq failed to provide any credible evidence to support its claims of unilateral destruction of VX and VX precursors.

• UN inspectors reported to the UN Security Council that "UNMOVIC has information that conflicts with [Iraq's] account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problems of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared."

R-400 Bombs

• Iraq first claimed it had 1,200 R-400 chemical bombs.

• After Iraq admitted its biological weapons program in 1995, Iraq altered its story and added 350 R-400 bombs.

• However, UNSCOM has never fully verified Iraq's ever-changing claims and concluded it did not know how many R-400 bombs Iraq produced for chemical/biological agents.

• Of these 1,550 bombs, Iraq says it filled 157 with biological agents. Nothing supports that number. UNSCOM concluded it did not know how many Iraq filled with biological weapons.

• Iraq claims today that newly-found bombs and bomb fragments add up close to 157 and that, therefore, the issue of R-400 biological bombs can be closed.

• Regrettably, the fact is that Iraq has refused to provide a complete and accurate count on how many R-400 bombs — filled or unfilled

• Iraq really has in its possession.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Spray Devices

• We now know that inspectors discovered an undeclared Unmanned Aerial Vehicle with a 7.45 meter wingspan, based on a drop tank system that Iraq admitted was intended to disperse biological agent, has apparent autonomous flight capability and appears to have the capability to fly more than 150 kilometers.

• This type of discovery is only the latest chapter in Iraq's effort to hide the fact that it has worked for years to develop Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and spray devices to deliver chemical and biological agent.

• Only in 1996 did Iraq admit trying to convert the MiG-21 fighter aircraft into an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to deliver a biological weapon agent. Then, Iraq changed its story and claimed that the MiG-21 would deliver a "munition."

• On spray tanks, UNMOVIC concludes, "there is a clear contradiction in Iraq's explanation of...spray tanks." Contrary to Iraq's declaration, Iraq has "a well-developed drop-tank for [a] chemical agent."

• UNMOVIC states, "The development of tanks for chemical weapons and biological weapons uses should...be considered...one continued project...Spraying devices modified for chemical/biological weapon purposes may still exist in Iraq."

• Iraq has pursued several other Unmanned Aerial Vehicles — the L-29 jet trainer and smaller aircraft — all capable of using spray devices to deliver a chemical/biological agent.

• UNMOVIC's basic conclusion: a "general question of Iraq's intentions with respect to remote-piloted vehicles as chemical/biological delivery systems..."

SCUD-Type Biological and Chemical Warheads

• UNMOVIC's document states: "A number of discrepancies and questions remain which raise doubts about accounting of special warheads, including:

• The total number produced [100 warheads, not 75] ...

• Iraq's numerous modifications to its declarations on these matters.

• Iraq's admitted action taken to mislead UNSCOM on the location and number of special warheads.

• And most importantly, the physical evidence which conflicts with Iraq's account of its destruction of biological warheads..."

• This issue is important because special warheads are "linked to the wider issue of whether Iraq had retained Scud-type missiles, propellant and a launching capability after the declared destruction."

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

futuro

03-14-2003, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by cryptorad
Futuro,

I really should let it lie.. because this is just more useless info. Your statements of facts are slanted.. as I suppose mine must appear to you.

Everybody has a slant, based on their feellings one way or the othrer, I recognize that. I do hope that I can put the facts available above my slant, and come to a resaonable conclusion based on fats.

One quick comment on your Military questions. No.. Bush had 10 months and NO.. the military is NOT up to speed yet. It's still a shell of what it was, but it's better then it was in 1995. Yes Clinton started the rebuild himself. Just a tiny bit though.. nothing like Bush has done. BUT.. alot of the money Bush has already budgeted for it's rebuilding (it will take time). The original discussion was about budgets.

On one hand, you're claiming that Clinton decimated the US military, and Bush only had 10 months to correct it. On the other hand, the military was quite sufficent to blow Afghanistan away. And I might add, almost any other countriy. Even during the Clinton years, our military spending was at least 40% of the entire world's total military spending. We're not weak by a long shot. There's no country in the world, hell no 20 countries in the world, that could compete militarily with us. Right now, and I'd bet during the Clinton "weakened army" years, we could conquer the entire world. How freaking much is enough? Why are we spending so much on the military, when there isn't a real threat in sight? Are we so insecure of our position in the world that we must be able to beat up anybody? I really don't think that, outside of a few deranged individuals, there's a person in the world that values their life, that would take on the US in a war, conventional, or otherwise.

Ike, in his farewell spech to the US public, warned us about the military-industrial complex. Ike's farewell speech (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html)

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

IMHO, we lost sight of Ike's warning, and wars like Viet Nam, and Bush's war are a direct result of the "unwarranted influence" or the military-industrial complex. After all, the defense industries can't sell the governemnt new ordinance, unless we use up the old ones.

And I'd just want to make mention that Ike was someone who knew what he was talking about. A 4-star general, the archectict of D-Day, and the Allied victory over Nazi Germany, and a two-term president of the US. We're in what he warned us about, except even moreso. If you read the Howler article I posted previously about how the RNC manipulated the "liberal press" with regard to Gore's comment about the internet, you'l grasp the quagmire we're in. Even our "independent press" is going whole hog for this war, and swaying the opinion of the US public with propaganda and innuendo.

More on this point below...

If you will recall.. 1995 was the year when it was OBVIOUS Iraq was continuing to develop WMD and Saddam's son exposed the VX case embarassment to the UN inspectors (they had no clue). THAT was the time to go into Iraq and do something.. perfect timing, perfect reason, BUT.. our military was NOT in a position to do it. Yeap.. couldn't do it because they were a shell. You'll never find that bragged about by Billy boy or his cronies.. you can betcha. Lot's of people say Bill had no balls to go in.. but that is a crock. Bill Clinton never gave two flying shits about going into somewhere if he wanted to and he was never afraid to let other people go fight. He had an aversion to joining the military himself (buncha losers .. or something) which is why he called Canada home for a period of time.

And here we have you regurgitating the RNC lines about Clinton. At least he had the balls to protest the VN war, and take the chance that his protest and "draft evasion" might cost him his ambitions. Meanwhile, Bush was getting a plumb National Guard assignment, based on his father and grandfather's influence. I'm not even going to bring up the "awol" stuff. Just the fact that he refused to enlist, or take ROTC in college, should be enough for you to brand him part of the "buncha losers". He took a milk-run National Guard assignment, rather than risk his precious skin actually fighting in the war. To me, he took a much easier way out than Clinton did. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to have gotten a number in the last two draft lotteries (337,phew! and 264, when they only went to 120-something in 1974). I had an uncle and a cousin killed in VN, and for what? So that some corporate types who's kids had "deferments" could make gobs of money from the deaths of my relatives and friends?

And this war is just as unjustified as VN. Perhaps you should do a search for the Pentagon Papers, and see the lies the government told us, so that they could wage that war. Perhaps you'd look upon the "reasons" for invading Iraq with a little cynicism, rather than swallowing their excuses hook line and sinker.

Perhaps you should review the "incubator story" form the 1991 gulf war, that charged the US public into a fever of anger at Saddam. It was a lie, repeated by Bush I. It turned out that the woman telling the story had left Kuwait prior to the Iraqi invasion. But that didn't stop the US from trumpeting the story to inflame public opinion against Iraq.

However.. here is one for you to read. I remember you said you lacked 'proof'. Yes, it's a State Department document. I'm sure it's just all lies based on lies. It's either all lies.. or your wrong.

Which do you chose?

<snip of document to save space>

You know. I've never disputed that Iraq has bio or chem weapons. It really doesn't matter to me. If he's stupid enough to use them against us, then he's toast. You sound like a conservative, one who supports the right to bear arms. Are you going to bombard your neigbor's house because he has a gun, too? After all, if he came to your house, gun drawn and crazed, you'd shoot him then, right? But are you going to go to his house and shoot him first, because he could come to your house and shoot you? Sure, Saddam used his chem weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds, but guess what? They were both threatening his existance. He used them in defense. And after all, when he did use them, the US kept quiet about it. Now, all of a sudden, we're all bent out of shape about this, 12 years after a war which we won handily, in which he didn't use chem or bio weapons against us.

And for the uninitiated, why would Saddam give wmd to Al Queda, when he can't be sure they wouldn't use them against the "infidel" leading Iraq?

You know, with all the reseaons presented for this war, I'm always coming back to the main one that's missing.

HE HASN'T ATTACKED US

And no, he wasn't involved in 9/11. I lost a couple of friends in that mess too. so don't tell me that I'm "ignoring" it. I want the perpetrators brought to justice for that crime, not a war against some country that jsut happens to have oil.

cryptorad

03-14-2003, 01:43 AM

Depends on your definition of attack. I could present several viewpoints.. but I will stick with one that is pretty easy to correlate to a threat to our security.

We are Israel's allies. We are not sworn to their defense (that I know of), but we would come to their aid if it was needed.

Iraq has threatened and attacked Israel continually for years. He is paying families of suicide bombers for bombing Israel. He has clearly said he'll launch missles on Israel, and has called for his "Arab brothers" to join him in fighting the "INFIDELS!". That's the US and Israel.. we're the infidels. If he can involve Israel in a war with the US he will do it.. because as he has said. THEY are one and the same. Infidels, who must die.

He has threatened Israel repeatedly. He has attacked Israel repeatedly. We have proof. He hates Israel. He hates the US. He has threatened the US repeatedly. We don't have proof of any direct attacks on the US. Only suspicions. There is a good reason for this. Any attacks he undertakes against the US HAVE to be in secret. If he is caught or proven to have attacked us.. his country, and likely his very life, will cease to exist that very week. No one disputes that. Saddam knows this.

We only have suspicions that he has attacked us (anthrax, Sept 11th) but his words and actions CLEARLY indicate he is a threat. A threat to Mideast stablility, which is required for US peace and security and our way of life. Our suspicions about Sept 11th surround the Iraqi intelligence agent who met with Muhammad Atta several times. Two of these meetings occured (roughly) just prior to the start of Atta's mission and once just prior to the end of the mission when they flew the planes into the Twin Towers. The meetings are facts (not made up) and their timing is way too amazing to be coincidence. Atta was on this mission during these meetings. It's possible they discussed their love of American freedom's, but I think you'd agree only a fool would believe that. But let's move on past suspicions of having already attacked. Let discuss "permission" to attack Iraq from the UN.

Is the US ever going to get authority from the UN to go into Iraq? Nope. France will never vote in favor. They've said so. Why? It seems rather odd doesn't it. Well consider this theory. France has helped them obtain some of their illegal weapons. These facts are starting to trickle out. Allow me to repeat, France will NEVER vote in favor of an Iraqi invasion. If French companies have helped them buy tons of banned materials in violation of the UN embargo and they are making WMD with them. How's that gonna look? Hmm.. but is he working on WMD? Check out the link from my last post if that question is on your mind. Some of the materials that the French helped get into Iraq illegally have NO other purpose .. except for these functions.

SOOOO.. he is working on nuclear weapons. He has developed VX gas. DURING inspections we have to admit. Facts. So let me ask you this about yourself. Do you really want to risk your life by saying "You can't prove he is going to bomb (gas) us?". Because if your wrong.. your dead. I'll say this. You are right. We can't prove what he might do to us in the future. Hell.. we can't even prove some of what we KNOW for certain he has done in the past. That does NOT mean they are not true. That does not mean the threat is not real. He has been told, NOT just by us.. but by the whole UN council, get rid of the weapons. Disarm. Disarm. Disarm. He has agreed to disarm.. it was part of the cease fire. If you break a cease fire, people may start shooting at you again. He knows this. It's just a fact. But saying there is a lack of "proof" of his intent to bomb or gas us is only a means for someone who wants to have peace at any cost.. and avoid war at all costs.

To me, war is NOT the worst of the possible scenario's of our future. Saddam Hussein making several nuclear weapons and smuggling them into the US is pretty horrible. And even THAT isn't the worst scenario.

I would rather see a war. Why I'm painted as a horrible person for that choice I can't quite understand. Let me repeat.. War is not the WORST scenario. I can't say for a fact Saddam Hussein is going to bomb us as soon as he can. But what CAN I say about him?

I can say that he keeps trying to make illegal weapons of mass destruction. I can say that he does this in defiance of the whole world (90%+). I can say that he can't use these illegal weapons for anything but mass killing. I can say that he HAS used these illegal weapons for mass killing. I can say he claimed he didn't possess these illegal weapons and then was caught with them. I can say he has said he didn't possess these illegal weapons and then used them. I can say he has only used illegal weapons against weaker groups who cannot retaliate, or when he thought he wouldn't be caught (or connected to them). I can say that he has used those illegal weapons even when he knows he'll kill innocents. I can say that he has killed tens of thousands of people with these horrible weapons. I can say that he has threatened to use those weapons against the US. I can say that he says he doesn't have them now. I can say alot of people in the world believe him when he says he doesn't have them. Or.. at least they SAY they believe him. Let's examine his neighbors a moment shall we?

I can say that the entire MIDDLE EAST has prepared and has plans for the consequences of these types of attacks from him. Yet, still they say he shouldn't be stopped. That there is not enough 'proof' to go in and stop him. And at the same time they are afraid to death of him launching against them. They even expect it and plan for it. Now those are some seriously misguided individuals. I don't want to risk my children because I need to be attacked before I "know for sure". I don't want to be one of those people.

I do not want to give the person I just described "The benefit of the doubt" when the evidence is strongly indicative otherwise. I do not want to risk my families lives just to make sure he gets all the rights and privileges of a US citizen accused of a crime. The innocent until proven guilty method works if you are trying someone for a crime. It doesn't apply if you are working on security of nations and dealing with religious fanatics. US rights and privileges are something Saddam does not deserve, and will never deserve. Rights and privileges he has never offered to his own citizens.

NO sir. I say Saddam can go to hell.

Now.. in closing.. good discussion Futuro. I enjoyed the debate. But I'm signing off this thread now. I have absolutely exceeded my bandwidth here and need to draw a line somewhere. Even though I don't want to stop, sometimes .. you have to say enough is enough. Just like we need to do with Hussein.

homer

03-14-2003, 09:17 PM

War is a terrible solution to conflicts It is a tragic loss of life and waste of resources that could be put to advancing the condition of mankind. It is also a necessary response to the presence of evil. Just as revolution has been a radical but necessary response to despots within nations, war has proven a necessary answer to those who would challenge and destroy other nations, or even risk world-wide holocaust for their selfish wickedness.

Unlike diplomacy, war is not a battle of words; and the results are not the loss of face. Diplomacy is the first effort to reconcile; war is the last response. To understand the necessity of war in the current situation, it is helpful to understand the reasons for its opposition.

Preemption

As a fair and moral nation, we have always been guided by a view of military action in response to provocation. In recent years, we have often turned the other cheek to nominal attacks, even at the loss of American citizens and soldiers. When attacks were at the behest of nations and waged with conventional weaponry, such a delayed response was a civil posture. In a world of multi-national, or even non-national, terrorists, with a potential for catastrophic loss from weapons of mass destruction, the rules have changed. To fail to act on reasonable intelligence indicating a potential for such modern acts of war is stupid, and a constitutional breach of duty. The president has been right to move slowly and to use every tool to disarm our enemies peacefully. In the light of failure of those efforts, he has also been right to mass our military might for an overwhelming assault. The rapid decimation of the enemy will be his objective; the minimization of civilian casualties will, of course, be a major goal; but the prevention of the loss of American lives will be his duty, and that may well justify preemptive action.

Unilateral Action

America is not a bully. We do not go around picking fights with lesser nations. Though our might stands alone, and our economic resources are many, our national character is of a warm and generous spirit. We are quick to offer assistance, and slow to anger. We have given back to nations that which might well be claimed as ours from use of our technology, know-how or other resources; hardly an imperialist orientation. We have not needed the permission of France, Germany or the UN to act in generosity, and we do not need it to act in our defense. We are a sovereign nation and have the God given right to a national life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That we welcome the support of just and freedom seeking allies is a reflection of our desire, not a mandate to our course of action. When tyrants offend the sensibilities of the free world, it is expected that the free world will respond in unison. The failure of any of them, or all of them, to do so is a blight on their own national character, not a restraint on our own.

More Inspections

Iraq is, and has for 12 years, been in default of directives from a patient world that allowed it to cleanse itself of past transgressions. It chose to ignore those generous offers, and direct its limited wealth to hateful instead of peaceful devises; it built chemical and biological weapons, instead of an economy that would sustain its citizens. It ventured further into the realm of nuclear weapons for massive destruction of life and the advance of an evil agenda of one man. The sole purpose of any inspections was to allow this man one last chance to prove his correction of past wrongs, not to establish new ones. He has failed to do so, and has placed his nation at risk. He is not entitled to one additional day of delay, or one additional "inspection." He needs to go – and will. It was his choice.

Financial Costs

There is no financial measure, nor any financial constraint, to the preservation of freedom. Had there been, our own American revolution would have never been fought, and certainly would not have continued to secure our own freedom. John Kennedy’s notion that we would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship…" in the defense of liberty was not a hollow one. The one unquestionable expense that our country must never shirk from paying is the price to maintain our freedom and to protect our citizens; it is the fundamental reason for which our government exists.

Immoral Purpose

"It’s about power and oil," chant the demonstrators. They seldom understand the real issues, and predictably point to convenient and tired slogans. If we wanted oil, we’d have taken it the last time! Ditto for the power thing. In reality, the oil was "created" out of U.S. technology and engineering in the first place, but fair-minded and respectful as we are, we have played along with the oil cartels for decades, allowing their sheiks and princes to become obscenely rich with wealth unshared. We would much prefer to put our own resources into developing a non-petroleum energy source, and likely will. If we did, Saddam would just wither and die like the "Wizard of Oz" witch. It is through his own actions, that he has prompted an earlier exit – not our desire to take his oil.

What about the others?

Iran, N. Korea and other nations have spawned and supported terror cells, rattled sabers against neighbors, and even threatened America and the free world. It is in our own interest to deal with each of them in ways of our own choosing, and in our own time frame. It is their choice to act in threatening or evil ways; it is our choice of whether, when, and how to respond. It’s not that we can’t fight battles on more than one front if our nation is threatened; it’s that we choose not to. The purveyors of ill in the world know not to test our capacity, or our patience. Germany, Japan and the U.S.S.R. have all offered the world more potential for destructive power than any of the current crop of petty wannabe bad guys. They would be wise to learn from history.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

- John F. Kennedy

futuro

03-15-2003, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by homer
War is a terrible solution to conflicts It is a tragic loss of life and waste of resources that could be put to advancing the condition of mankind.

Bravo, and reading this, I'm amazed at the rest of your post.

It is also a necessary response to the presence of evil.

"Evil"..... It always seems that "evil" is an epithat soley applied to one's enemies. Many in the world seem to consider many actions of the US government "evil". Japan's leaders prior to, and during WWII progulated the "evil" of the US. We call Saddam "evil". Our genocide of native Americans would be considered "evil" except by the settlers who, in turn, called the "indians" "evil". Germany in WWII was "evil". The institution of slavery was "evil".

"Evil", like good, is a relative term, applied to those one disagrees with. For a country that applies the death penalty in amounts not known in the rest of the first world, what would you say about the US? Why are we the only industrialized nation that tells our citizens not to kill because it is wrong, and then proceeds to kill those who fail to heed the warning? Perhaps the death penalty is a kettle of fish best left untouched in a discussion of whether we should invade another country, but I think it's germaine, considering our current president is one who presided over the deaths of many when governor of Texas. It seems to me that this is somewhat of the same mindset, that we should invoke the ultimate penalty on a country (war), in the same way we invoke the ultimate penalty on our own people.

Just as revolution has been a radical but necessary response to despots within nations, war has proven a necessary answer to those who would challenge and destroy other nations, or even risk world-wide holocaust for their selfish wickedness.

Those who have revolted, in almost every case that comes to mind, have been branded as "evil" by those being revolted against and vice-versa. There have been hundreds of wars started by "evil" states against "good" states. There have been hundreds of wars started by "good" states against "evil" states. And guess what? They're the same wars. The definiton of "good" and "evil" has changed throught history, and will change again, without doubt.

"Selfish wickedness" is also a term that is relative. Many countries and many corporations practice "selfish wickedness" with the full consent of the "authorities". Many in the world today look at the US as the prime example of "selfish wickedness". Our prolific use of energy, per capita, is one example. Our propensity to judge other countries by our standards, and sometimes force them to adhere to our standards is another.

Unlike diplomacy, war is not a battle of words; and the results are not the loss of face. Diplomacy is the first effort to reconcile; war is the last response. To understand the necessity of war in the current situation, it is helpful to understand the reasons for its opposition.

This stance is assuming that war is the default position, and anit-war needs to be defended. I see it the other way. War is usually conducted when one country either sees it's economic position threatened by another country, or sees a possible gain from the ther country. There are few other reasons for war.

Preemption

As a fair and moral nation,

Now there's an assumption that many could dispute, and fairly. We have used our economic and military muscle to coerce other nations into going along with whatever we say. The current crop of "allies" is a primary example. Most of the countries that are on "our side" have been either promised, or threatened. I ask you, if our stance was completely and morally correct, why would we need to bribe or threaten other countries to support us?

we have always been guided by a view of military action in response to provocation. In recent years, we have often turned the other cheek to nominal attacks, even at the loss of American citizens and soldiers. When attacks were at the behest of nations and waged with conventional weaponry, such a delayed response was a civil posture.

A stance that I'm very upset we seem to be abandoning.

In a world of multi-national, or even non-national, terrorists,

"Criminals" That's what they are. Whether they're supported by one, many or no nations does not change the fact that they are criminals, and as such should be subject to our laws. Abandoning our princibles and laws for anyone removes our moral ground for any action. If we don't apply our own standards to others, our standards are worthless.

with a potential for catastrophic loss from weapons of mass destruction, the rules have changed.

Why would they change? I'm interested to know why you would abandon your morality simply because you are threatened? And especially in the case when the threat comes from a nation, or group of individuals that aren't any more of a threat, and can't cause any more "mass destrustion" than what automobiles have caused in the last year.

To fail to act on reasonable intelligence indicating a potential for such modern acts of war is stupid, and a constitutional breach of duty.

"A potentional"??? Are we to act on the potential of any nation, individual or group of individuals to harm us? In that case, you've just completely destroyed the whole basis for the morality that the US is built on. We don't imprison people on the "potential" that they may rape someone. We don't shoot someone based on the "potential" that that may use their gun to shoot someone else. That's not the way we decided to build our society.

And this "modern acts of war" you're referring to (i.e, terrorism) isn't anything new. The word "terrorism" might be a new term, but the act has existed for millenium. Conduting a "war on terrorism" is as silly as conducting a "war on carpet bombing". Both are tactics of war. "War on terrorism" is just code for "war on muslims who have a gripe (justified or not) against the US". Perhaps the ultimate "war on terrorism" would be to use our immense wealth to improve the lives of people all over the world. That would certainly take the bite out of terrorism. Happy, well fed people are much less likely to be terrorists.

The president has been right to move slowly and to use every tool to disarm our enemies peacefully.

Yet another tool of propaganda. Branding those who we wish to eliminate as "our enemies". And let me ask you, if I branded you an "enemy", would you let me disarm you peacefully?

In the light of failure of those efforts, he has also been right to mass our military might for an overwhelming assault.

Oh, yes. Might makes right. Even if we have to ignore our basic beliefs to do it. I might also point out that one day, sooner than you think, our "might" will not be enough to overwhelm a "potential" enemy. It's easy to justify invading another country when you're the big kid on the block, but the little kids are growing, and they have good memories.

The rapid decimation of the enemy will be his objective; the minimization of civilian casualties will, of course, be a major goal; but the prevention of the loss of American lives will be his duty, and that may well justify preemptive action.

Oh, yes. Minimize "civilian" causualties. Just like we did in Viet Nam. If they got killed, they were VC, or VC sympathizers. They never were "civillians", were they?

Unilateral Action

America is not a bully. We do not go around picking fights with lesser nations.

<choke, gag> What the hell do you think we are doing right now???

Though our might stands alone, and our economic resources are many, our national character is of a warm and generous spirit. We are quick to offer assistance, and slow to anger.

I'm beginning to think that the author, you or otherwise, has no clue about the history on US meddling in other nations. We've been responsible for at least 15 "regime changes", with no regard to the wishes of the people of the countries we interfered in. We've supported worse dictators than Saddam, and we even were supporting Saddam when we were fully aware of his use of chem weapons on Iranians and Kurds. As long as it was for our purposes, it was ok, wasn't it?

And to prove the writer of this screed wrong, all I need to do is mention two words: Viet Nam.

We have given back to nations that which might well be claimed as ours from use of our technology, know-how or other resources; hardly an imperialist orientation.

I'd really like to see an example of this "fact". Perhaps the Peace Corps might be an example of this, but it's hardly an organ of the US government. The writer seems to have a problem distinguishing the difference between the US people and the US government.

We have not needed the permission of France, Germany or the UN to act in generosity, and we do not need it to act in our defense.

Defense from what? Trumped up "threats" from a country that has been bombarded, inspected, and sanctioned for 12 years? I gave some good examples before as to what depths the US government will go to inflame the US public against a perceived "enemy".
And they're doing it again. The recent revelation that supposed "documents" that "proved" Iraq was trying to accquire uranium have been shown to be "fabricated". Also known as "a lie".

I urge the readers to peruse any website that has a summary of the Pentagon Paper, just so you can see how four US presidents lied to us, just so they could conduct a war against NVN. What makes anyone think they wouldn't do it again?

We are a sovereign nation and have the God given right to a national life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

My complete cynism comes out right here. If "god" gave us these rights, let "god" protect them. Why send thousands of young Americans to "protect" them? Why not send Pat Robertson, George Bush, Dick Chaney, and those types. They're the ones that seem to think this war is necessary. Let them fight it.

That we welcome the support of just and freedom seeking allies is a reflection of our desire, not a mandate to our course of action. When tyrants offend the sensibilities of the free world, it is expected that the free world will respond in unison. The failure of any of them, or all of them, to do so is a blight on their own national character, not a restraint on our own.

So how does the author explain why we supprort the realm of Pakistan, a military junta that denies the rights of it's citizens? Oh, becasue they're our "friends"?

More Inspections

Iraq is, and has for 12 years, been in default of directives from a patient world that allowed it to cleanse itself of past transgressions.

How noble of the world. How noble of Pakistan and Indian, who are still skirmishing over disputed parts of Kashmir. How noble of Britan, that during that time killed many people in Ireland, who simply wanted independence. How noble of the US, that supports dictators, just because they're "friendly". How noble of Turkey and Greecs, who have troops stationed in Cyprus, in spite of UNSC resolutions, denying the people of Cyprus the right of self-determination. Countries that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you know.

It chose to ignore those generous offers,

I can't stomach the self-righeous attitude of the author. A generous offer is to disarm, and make your country totally defensless? What nation on earth would accept that?

and direct its limited wealth to hateful instead of peaceful devises; it built chemical and biological weapons, instead of an economy that would sustain its citizens.

Similar to how the US is spending itself into debt to foster "homeland security" at the expense of a record number of homeless?

It ventured further into the realm of nuclear weapons for massive destruction of life and the advance of an evil agenda of one man.
[QUOTE]

Hardy, har har. No proof they have tried to accquire nukes, except for a proven false document.

And speaking of evil agendas of one man, may I introduce you to George W. Bush? You know, the one who wants to start an unprovoked war against a country can't threaten the US?

[QUOTE]
The sole purpose of any inspections was to allow this man one last chance to prove his correction of past wrongs, not to establish new ones. He has failed to do so, and has placed his nation at risk. He is not entitled to one additional day of delay, or one additional "inspection." He needs to go – and will. It was his choice.

It's amazing how this "one man" could so threaten the greatest nation on earth. What are we so scared of?

Financial Costs

There is no financial measure, nor any financial constraint, to the preservation of freedom.

Assuming, of course, that there is any threat to our freedom. At the most, a threat has been proposed to some US citizens lives. Is the author saying that Saddam has, or could have, the capability to comepletely conquer the US, and replace our government with a facist one? If so, I wonder at his sense of proportion.

Had there been, our own American revolution would have never been fought, and certainly would not have continued to secure our own freedom.

And here is a weird analogy, if I've ever seen one. The American Revolution was fought against a far superior foe, and against great odds. By all accounts, Iraq and Al Queda combined could never have the firepower to defeat the US military and overrun the US mainland. At worst, using the alleged "nucular" weapons, they might succed in murdering a few million US citizens (a far-fetched notion, to be sure). I'm wondering if this isn't just a baseless emotional appeal to inflame the citizenry against an enemy that the government has chosen for their own enrichment, and are using these types of arguements to hide the real reaosn for the attack.....

John Kennedy’s notion that we would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship…" in the defense of liberty was not a hollow one. The one unquestionable expense that our country must never shirk from paying is the price to maintain our freedom and to protect our citizens; it is the fundamental reason for which our government exists.

And John Kennedy was reffering to a nation that actually had the capability to do it, not some poor third world nation that was already decimated.

Immoral Purpose

"It’s about power and oil," chant the demonstrators. They seldom understand the real issues, and predictably point to convenient and tired slogans.

Typical propaganda. Brush off the oppositon claiming they don't know, and they're slogans are "tired". Sorry, but peace is never "tired".

If we wanted oil, we’d have taken it the last time! Ditto for the power thing.

We got some oil the last time, don't you know. We got the undying gratitude of the Kuwaiti oil barons. We rescued Kuwaiti oil from an unfriendly (to us) despot and returned it to freindly despots. Part of the reason Saddam went to war against Kuwait was that they were seriously undercutting the OPEC oil price, and making it hard for him to pay his debts for the war against Iran. A war the US government fully supported him in, by the way.

In reality, the oil was "created" out of U.S. technology and engineering in the first place, but fair-minded and respectful as we are, we have played along with the oil cartels for decades, allowing their sheiks and princes to become obscenely rich with wealth unshared.

Oh, how nice of us. The "US" technology you're refffering to was technology that US-based multinational oil companied used to extract oil from those countries. They didn't do it to be "fair-minded", they did it to share immense profits.

And I'm amazed at your comment about "wealth unshared". What do you think the US has ben doing for the last 100 years? Not only do we not share our wealth with other countries, we dont' share our wealth with our own citizens.

I'm beginning to think that the "Homer" refers more to Homer Simpson, than Homer, the ancient Greek poet.

We would much prefer to put our own resources into developing a non-petroleum energy source, and likely will.

Guffaw! Not with oil-man Bush in charge, we won't.

If we did, Saddam would just wither and die like the "Wizard of Oz" witch. It is through his own actions, that he has prompted an earlier exit – not our desire to take his oil.

Since your premise is blatantly wrong, so is your conclusion. I'll throw another thing in here. Newsweek had a piece stating that the cost of war would be higher than any profis from Iraqi oil. What they conveniently left out was, the [I]cost[/] of the war will be bourn by the US tapayers. The profits from the oil will go to the oil company friends of Bush.

What about the others?

Iran, N. Korea and other nations have spawned and supported terror cells, rattled sabers against neighbors, and even threatened America and the free world. It is in our own interest to deal with each of them in ways of our own choosing, and in our own time frame. It is their choice to act in threatening or evil ways; it is our choice of whether, when, and how to respond. It’s not that we can’t fight battles on more than one front if our nation is threatened; it’s that we choose not to. The purveyors of ill in the world know not to test our capacity, or our patience. Germany, Japan and the U.S.S.R. have all offered the world more potential for destructive power than any of the current crop of petty wannabe bad guys. They would be wise to learn from history.

Yes, they would. They better not find any oil under their dirt, or we'll go to war with them, too.

I don't know what you think you accomplished with this post, but it's the same old invalid excuses for a war that has no provocation. If this war happens, it's because the US started it, not for any other reason.

Borscht

03-15-2003, 11:03 AM

Yes, they would. They better not find any oil under their dirt, or we'll go to war with them, too.
*Yawn* If it's all about oil, why didn't we take over the oil fields after Kuwait?

If this war happens, it's because the US started it, not for any other reason.
My guess is the brutalized, tortured, raped and oppressed people of Iraq will be grateful to have freedom restored to them. No matter who starts the war.

And when that happens, we'll all remember that you were one of the people who cared not a whit for them. But simply used the "anti war" charade to try to make your anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-American partisanship appear moral.

In the words of our great president:

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Alwayslost

03-15-2003, 10:53 PM

Homer,

While I do not 100% agree with your post, I found it very well written and very thought invoking.

Futuro,

I'm really baffled here. What is it you think should be done?

Do you feel we (the US) should just leave the reigon of the middle east and let them all fighht it out amongst themselves??

Do you seriously believe that continued inspections (at this point) will accomplish anything? If so, What?

With no provocation, Saddam Rolled his forces into Kuait. If we had done nothing at the time, do you also believe he would have stopped there?

At what point do we do something? Where do we draw the line? Do we wait till some other orgnization starts using the weapons of Iraq on the US? Or should we just go after thos people and let him continue to make them and supply them to enemies of his enemies?

Do you have to see your home town attacked? Your friends and families die or suffer at the hands of terrorists in order for you to believe that force is now necessary?

Maybe you believe that some other nation should be the ones to do what is necessary to protect the lives of countless others? If so, Who?

Maybe you believe that the people of Iraq REALLY do hate us, Maybe they do, MAYBE the ENTIRE nation is genetically bred into a nation of masochists. But I kinda doubt it.

I am just amazed that given the OVER 12 year history involved here, and your apparent level of intelligence that you could really continue to hold out any REASONABLE hope of this ever ending in a truly peaceful way...

I can see that of the Nudnicks in the streets with their signs and their obvious herd mentality. I can UNDERSTAND France's position to a limited degree, but DUDE!

We WILL lose AMERICAN lives because of Saddam, sooner or later. The choice is do we lose lives that are trained to fight to protect this country or do we lose Mary Smith and her 3 hour old child as she is blown to bits at Central Community Hospital? Or maybe Suzie and Sara as a cannister of VX is released into the air a block upwind from their 3rd grade class? What about the 15,000 Coledge students in Florida on Spring break as mustard gass is released into a crowded beach?

And before you start about the many TENS of thousand IRAQI lives that will be lost in a war, remember two things here, first SADDAM is placing them in harms way, and second, those lives are in the same amount of risk EVERY day from thier own government. In the last 12 years it is not impossible that the Iraqi government alone has caused TENS of thousands of lives to be lost within their own borders.

As I go back and re-read your replies to Homer's post I see that you really seem to have no grasp of action vs consequence. You will twist the facts to support your beliefs no matter how far fetched.

I'm interested to know why you would abandon your morality simply because you are threatened? And especially in the case when the threat comes from a nation, or group of individuals that aren't any more of a threat, and can't cause any more "mass destrustion" than what automobiles have caused in the last year.

This is the larges pile of crap I have read on this board yet. To compare the PLANNED deaths of thousands to the collective sum of incidental actions of 180 million people, and to suggest that we wait till it HAPPENS before we react??? WTF are you smoking? Those threats you so casually dismiss are MORE than empty. Unless you think we should be issuing a Traffic ticket to Bin Ladin?

Another example is this:

I can't stomach the self-righeous attitude of the author. A generous offer is to disarm, and make your country totally defensless? What nation on earth would accept that?

Here is where you prove that it is you that is not in grasp of reality. Please explain to me since you are so wise:

1) Why does ANY country need VX to protect itself?

2) Why does ANY country need Anthrax to protect itself?

3) Why does ANY country need pilotless delivery vehicles that can travel 150 miles + to deliver these Weapons?

Now to address the main piece of tripe in your statement. They are NOT defenseless, they were not required to destroy Tanks, guns, missiles with shorter than 90 miles of flight, etc. You are the one making the "self-righeous" statements all through your post.

My complete cynism comes out right here. If "god" gave us these rights, let "god" protect them. Why send thousands of young Americans to "protect" them? Why not send Pat Robertson, George Bush, Dick Chaney, and those types. They're the ones that seem to think this war is necessary. Let them fight it.

Tell you what, you seem to want to volunteer others, how about this, we call off enforcing what the WORLD set as disarmament rules for Iraq as long as you, and your family, are the first in line to to sign up to die from the next terrorist attack that you are so convinced will never come. After all you are about as trained to deal with that as the president is to fly a f-15. Actually, judging by your posts, you are MORE trained to be a victom than the Presiden is to actually fight in a battle.

Ok, for like the fifth time, I have come to the conclusion that you are French(or you wish you were french). It is obvious that you hate the US, and consider this country to be a large group of war-driven bullies. You have a condesending attitude and love to CHOOSE to take what is said literally rather than trying to understand the point being made.

If you ARE an american, please contact the Iraqi consulate in D.C. please and sign up to be one of the living shields for the anti aircraft radar, I'm sure you will make the 6 o'clock news when Iraq is broadcasting your mangled corpse to show how evil the US is. If I see Iraqi civilians that have been placed in harms way, I am saddened, when I see sheep lined up from other nations to die for Saddam, I get out the popcorn and record it for repeated later viewing, all the while singing an old classic, "Culling the Heard"

futuro

03-16-2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Alwayslost
Homer,

While I do not 100% agree with your post, I found it very well written and very thought invoking.

Futuro,

I'm really baffled here. What is it you think should be done?

Santcions, inspections, deterence, you know, stuff like that that's been working for 12 years. He hasn't attacked anyone since Kuwait.

Do you feel we (the US) should just leave the reigon of the middle east and let them all fighht it out amongst themselves??

Why not? What possible result could come from out meddling except resentment an hatred? I'll ask you this. Suppose the US and Canada started having border disputes, with fighting breaking out and wmd's used. Would you want Britain, Spain, France and Germany sending troops over here to "mediate" and "keep peace"? Wouldn't you resent the intrusion, and harbor ill-feelings toward the meddlers?

Do you seriously believe that continued inspections (at this point) will accomplish anything? If so, What?

Sure they will. They'll make it harder for Saddam to continue any wmd production, harder to start any new programs, harder to commit any agression. Why do you think they won't?

With no provocation, Saddam Rolled his forces into Kuait. If we had done nothing at the time, do you also believe he would have stopped there?

He was provoked. Kuwait continued to sell oil under the OPEC price targets. He and other OPEC members tried to get them to stop multiple times, through negoitations and other means. Iraq was being hurt the most by this practice.

And he did stop there. And he was easily rebuked by the Gulf War. We weren't going to do nothing.

At what point do we do something? Where do we draw the line?

Overt agression against another country. How's that for a line? But then again, Pakistan and India do that seemingly on a regular schedule, and we're not disarming either of them, are we? Where's your line? Why do something about Iraq, and nothing about India and Pakistan?

<church lady mode>
Hmm, I wonder why.. could it be... oh I don't know, could it be.... THE OIL???
</church lady mode>

Do we wait till some other orgnization starts using the weapons of Iraq on the US? Or should we just go after thos people and let him continue to make them and supply them to enemies of his enemies?

Why do you think Saddam is an idiot? Why do you think he would give wmd's to Al Queda or any other terrorist organization? After going through all the trouble to get and make them, why would he give them to someone else, especially Bin Laden, the man who calls him "infidel"?

Do you have to see your home town attacked? Your friends and families die or suffer at the hands of terrorists in order for you to believe that force is now necessary?

I have seen it. Where do you think I'm from? But guess what? I'm of the opinion that it was a criminal organization that commited that act, and we, as a nation, should hunt down those responsible for planning and executing that crime. It seems we are, slowly. However, no one has presented credible evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11/01 crimes, or any other Al Queda crime.

Maybe you believe that some other nation should be the ones to do what is necessary to protect the lives of countless others? If so, Who?

I'd be happy if the US government started worrying about US citizens, instead of worrying about multinational corporations. It seems starving, homeless people and working people who keep finding that their incomes can no longer meet their needs are ignored, but corporations and rich people are continually given breaks.

An example : Bush's arm had to be twisted four ways to get an extension of unemployment benefits, but he's all for removing taxation on corporate dividends! I guess he thinks if you're poor or out of work, you don't need money, but if you're rich enough to own stocks, you need more....

Maybe you believe that the people of Iraq REALLY do hate us, Maybe they do, MAYBE the ENTIRE nation is genetically bred into a nation of masochists. But I kinda doubt it.

Your point? I don't remember making this arguement.

I am just amazed that given the OVER 12 year history involved here, and your apparent level of intelligence that you could really continue to hold out any REASONABLE hope of this ever ending in a truly peaceful way...

What 12 year history? The 12 year history when Iraq didn't invade another country, didn't give wmd's to terrorists? The 12 years Iraq has been under almost constant surveillance, inspections and sanctions? That 12 years history?

I can see that of the Nudnicks in the streets with their signs and their obvious herd mentality. I can UNDERSTAND France's position to a limited degree, but DUDE!

I'm not impressed. You've obviously swallowed the implication that somehow, Saddam was responsible for 9/11/01, that he's given any of his wmd's to anyone else, and that he's stupid enough to attack the most powerful nation on earth. Next thing you'll say is that he gave Timothy McVeigh the fertilizer. and gave the DC snipers the bullets.

We WILL lose AMERICAN lives because of Saddam, sooner or later. The choice is do we lose lives that are trained to fight to protect this country or do we lose Mary Smith and her 3 hour old child as she is blown to bits at Central Community Hospital? Or maybe Suzie and Sara as a cannister of VX is released into the air a block upwind from their 3rd grade class? What about the 15,000 Coledge students in Florida on Spring break as mustard gass is released into a crowded beach?

Quite a fertile imagination you got there. Also quite an inflated opinion of Saddam's capabilities. How do you suppose he's going to get VX nerve gas out of his country? Why so you suppose he's stupid enough to do that? Keep in mind, during the Gulf War, he did not use any wmd's against our troops, and they were right there, as close as he could want. The man obviously wants to live, not die in a "nucular" holocoust.

And before you start about the many TENS of thousand IRAQI lives that will be lost in a war, remember two things here, first SADDAM is placing them in harms way, and second, those lives are in the same amount of risk EVERY day from thier own government. In the last 12 years it is not impossible that the Iraqi government alone has caused TENS of thousands of lives to be lost within their own borders.

"Not impossible"? No, it's "not impossible". Likely? maybe. Could have" maybe... But unfortunatly, none of those is suffices to prosectute a war in which without doubt, some of those people you are trying to "protect" will lose their lives.

As I go back and re-read your replies to Homer's post I see that you really seem to have no grasp of action vs consequence. You will twist the facts to support your beliefs no matter how far fetched.

What if the consequence of our invading an arab country is tens of thousands more terrorists, hundreds of more terrorist organizations, and dozens of more terrorist attacks on US soil, few of which we are able to stop? We're already looked upon with suspision in the arab world, and an invasion would merely confirm those suspisions.

And I twist facts? Aren't you the one that seems sure that Saddam is in leaugue with terrorists, and wants to supply a man who calls him "infidel" with weapons that could easily be turned against him?

Tell you what, you seem to want to volunteer others, how about this, we call off enforcing what the WORLD set as disarmament rules for Iraq as long as you, and your family, are the first in line to to sign up to die from the next terrorist attack that you are so convinced will never come. After all you are about as trained to deal with that as the president is to fly a f-15. Actually, judging by your posts, you are MORE trained to be a victom than the Presiden is to actually fight in a battle.

Tell you what, I'll stop volunteering Bush, et al, if they stop volunteering the US military. And guess what? I'm of the opinion that the only way to stop terrorist attacks is for the US to treat other nations and peoples with respect and kindness. Certainly, engaging in a "pre-emptive" war against another country isn't going to do it.

Ok, for like the fifth time, I have come to the conclusion that you are French(or you wish you were french). It is obvious that you hate the US, and consider this country to be a large group of war-driven bullies. You have a condesending attitude and love to CHOOSE to take what is said literally rather than trying to understand the point being made.

No, I'm American, and wish the US wasn't on this course. I wish the US would do more to help people here and abroad, and stop helping corporations make profits.

And sorry, I haven't taken mind-reading courses, I can only answer what you write, and take it literally. If you mean something else, than write something else, don't expect me, or anyone else to use ESP to figure out what you mean from what you or anyone else says.

If you ARE an american, please contact the Iraqi consulate in D.C. please and sign up to be one of the living shields for the anti aircraft radar, I'm sure you will make the 6 o'clock news when Iraq is broadcasting your mangled corpse to show how evil the US is. If I see Iraqi civilians that have been placed in harms way, I am saddened, when I see sheep lined up from other nations to die for Saddam, I get out the popcorn and record it for repeated later viewing, all the while singing an old classic, "Culling the Heard"

Then why am I discussing this with you? You're obviously only in this for the entertainment value, aren't you? I'll bet you watch your tapes of the Kent State murders almost everyday, right?

You must think "Faces of Death" is a real hoot, huh?

board Lizard

03-16-2003, 10:52 PM

Sure they will. They'll make it harder for Saddam to continue any wmd production, harder to start any new programs, harder to commit any agression.

So you admit that he's was up until recently (November anyway) continuing with this wmd programs? Cause if so then you agree he was in clear and direct violation of the cease fire treaty.. and we all know what that means.

He was provoked. Kuwait continued to sell oil under the OPEC price targets. He and other OPEC members tried to get them to stop multiple times, through negoitations and other means. Iraq was being hurt the most by this practice.

Yes, it was all Kuwait's fault.. they were asking for it.. just like a date rape victim does. Is that what you're saying?

Go hug a tree, hippy. As of sometime in the coming week we'll be at war, a quick one I might add, and all your talk will mean jack shit.. good thing the majority of the American people support this war.. and thats all that really matters, what America wants.. know why? Cause we're the only fucking superpower and we fucking said so.. its the way its always been through history and its how it'll be now.. don't like it.. move to Iran and see how they treat your open minded and pro-Iraqi point of view.

p.s. just read this gem..

And guess what? I'm of the opinion that the only way to stop terrorist attacks is for the US to treat other nations and peoples with respect and kindness.

just FYI they don't give a flying fuck about your kindness.. they want you dead.. dead. (and don't give me the "thats cause we started it" speach because i don't give a fuck who started it.. all i care about is staying alive, and at this point love and sunshine isn't gonna do that for me.. but killing a few million arabs in a country far far away might.. might save me a couple of bucks on gas too) don't believe me? walk up to one of these ragheaded fundamentalists and try to hug him, then watch how quickly he kills you both with his homemade suicide bomb

Borscht

03-16-2003, 11:50 PM

Santcions, inspections, deterence, you know, stuff like that that's been working for 12 years. He hasn't attacked anyone since Kuwait.
It has not been working. Those things aren't in place to deter him from attacking. They demand that he *disarm*. Instead, with the covert assistance of France, Russia, and Germany he's been re-arming and pursuing WMD programs.

Blix tried to suppress the discovery of his undeclared bio/chem delivery drones. Hans thinks global warming is a greater threat than Saddam Hussein, as he stated in his interview with the renowned international news organization....MTV. Good to know we have serious people in charge of the "inspections".

We now have outstanding satellite photographs of the Boeing 727 fuselage 20km South of Baghdad used to train terrorists in hijacking techniques. British and American intelligence believes the 911 hijackers were trained right there.

The "inspectors" were not sent to Iraq to ferret out weapons. They were sent to receive the evidence that Iraq has disarmed.

Why not? What possible result could come from out meddling except resentment an hatred? I'll ask you this. Suppose the US and Canada started having border disputes, with fighting breaking out and wmd's used.
You're stoned. Canada doesn't own WMD's. The Boy Scouts of America could take over Canada with zero casualties. This supposed "resentment and hatred" sure hasn't stemmed the millions of people trying to become US citizens every year. Many risking life and limb for the precious opportunity.

What if the consequence of our invading an arab country is tens of thousands more terrorists, hundreds of more terrorist organizations, and dozens of more terrorist attacks on US soil, few of which we are able to stop?
You mean like all the unstoppable attacks after we overthrew the regime in Afghanistan? This is an old argument, as idiotic as when it was used then.

I wish the US would do more to help people here and abroad, and stop helping corporations make profits.
And here's the evidence of your true, warped and distorted motivations for pretending to be anti-war. You are merely another complete anti-capitalist loser, using the charade of "anti-war" rhetoric to try to seem moral in your anti-capitalist, anti-American hatred.

Capitalism is the key to freedom. Capitalist countries do not wage war with each other. America just liberated the oppressed and brutalized people of Afghanistan. Soon we will liberate Iraq, and when we do the tyrannical regime in Iran will collapse of its own weight.

You are an anachronism. Without clue, motivated by hatred and spite. So revoltingly partisan that you would ransom the safety of your own country, and the freedom of a tortured and oppressed people, to advance your pitiful and envious political views.

It is my sincere hope that you never, ever breed.

futuro

03-16-2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by board Lizard

just FYI they don't give a flying fuck about your kindness.. they want you dead.. dead. (and don't give me the "thats cause we started it" speach because i don't give a fuck who started it.. all i care about is staying alive, and at this point love and sunshine isn't gonna do that for me.. but killing a few million arabs in a country far far away might.. might save me a couple of bucks on gas too) don't believe me? walk up to one of these ragheaded fundamentalists and try to hug him, then watch how quickly he kills you both with his homemade suicide bomb

Look, war supporters! This is the kind of people that are on your side. Racist, pig-headed sadists who only want to kill everybody else. so that they can live their mean little lives.

Boardliz, you started this thread mentioning your gyn teacher's opinion. YOUR GYM TEACHER??? Get some life experience before you spout racist nonsense. One day, you'll figure out that life isn't all black and white, us versus them, and that leaders of all countries lie and cheat to enrich themselves, just like Bush is doing. You've bought in to the government propaganda, hook, line and sinker, and you're poorer for it. But I know you don't care, just so you can see some "ragheads" suffer for your entertainment. This is exactly the kind of attitude that makes the "regheads" clamor for your suffering death. What comes around goes around. The US isn't going to be the most powerful nation forever, history proves that, and the seeds we sow now are what is going to determine our fate. Picking fights with small, relatively helpless countries isn't going to bode well for our future prospects when there's other countries more powerful than us. And don't think they're won't be, probably sooner than your little mind can grasp.

And do yourself a favor, stop categorizing people based on their choice of head gear. Somebody might think that you're wearing that baseball cap because you're losing your hair.

Borscht

03-17-2003, 12:10 AM

One day, you'll figure out that life isn't all black and white, us versus them, and that leaders of all countries lie and cheat to enrich themselves, just like Bush is doing.
Yes, yes. They're all the same. Please, don't waste your breath on the tired, worn out, "everything is the same as everything else" post-modernist junk philosophy.

Only a complete idiot would attempt to draw moral equivalence between *any* US President, even Clinton, and Saddam Hussein.

One day you'll figure out that life is only filled with grey by those who are trying to obfuscate or deny the difference between good and evil, right and wrong.

Or by moral cowards too timid to consider the necessary *actions* one must take if one is a moral person. So they apply the good old grey, so they don't have to do anything scary.

Racist, pig-headed sadists who only want to kill everybody else. so that they can live their mean little lives.
There ya go! Break out the good old character attack. Right-hand man of the clueless liberal pacifist. So much easier than thinking.

Those who disagree with you are, of course, nothing but neanderthal thugs. Probably balding beneath their ballcaps. And even as you rant in your arrogant self-annointed moral superiority, you presume that a gym teacher by virtue of his employment alone is incapable of worthy thought.

Happily, your ilk are well recognized now for the fools that you truly are. Say goodbye to Hollywood, say goodbye to network news, say goodbye to the Democrat party. They, the UN, and their supporters such as yourself have revealed themselves to the entire civilized world as charlatans and jesters.

My guess is that the next great capitalisms will spring from the newly liberated Middle Eastern nations. Following in the historical footsteps of Japan and Germany. After all, they have a strong and historic mercantile heritage.

And who do you suppose those new powers will support? Those of us who struggled for their liberation, or blinded idiots like you who fought to keep them under the thumb of barbaric and tyrannical religious zealots?

Pigeon

03-17-2003, 12:44 AM

Rofl, good show Borscht. Been avoiding this thread because it's slightly off topic, but at 176 replies it's hard to ignore. So I click, first thing I read is that last post which is the best flame I've read in at least a month. Gonna have to start from the beginning I suppose.

Pigeon

03-17-2003, 04:38 AM

Well, I've put my waders on, and have read this whole thing through, and have decided to post. This thread has a mix of some of the crappiest posts/flames I've ever read, and some of the best. So here goes.

Slant warning: I think we should go to war with Iraq. I thought that before I read this thread, and I have very little faith that opinion will change without a fairly substantial reason that I have not already seen.

First, the "this war is about oil" argument is almost correct, but for all of the wrong reasons. We are not going to war with Iraq to take their oil. The "economic reason to go to war with Iraq" (quotes because it is silly) is the fear of economic chaos that would likely result from having half the world's oil supply cut off. We don't much care who we buy it from as long as we can buy it. We don't want Iraq's oil- the US imports a paltry amount of oil from Iraq at best- we want to make sure that if we need it from Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, we can still get it.

Note that the US is the world's 3rd largest producer of oil. Also note that the US only gets about 30-40% of its imported oil from the middle east. If we really wanted oil, we'd be invading Saudi Arabia, the world's largest producer of oil, or better yet, Canada, the US's largest oil importer. We may very well just uncap all the oil wells in the United States that are unused because it's cheaper just to import it.

Note that France makes more money from selling products to Iraq than any other country, and they are the loudest in opposition to the war. Third on that list is Russia, fourth is China.

Now to poke and prod at other posts.

Oh, yes. Minimize "civilian" causualties. Just like we did in Viet Nam. If they got killed, they were VC, or VC sympathizers. They never were "civillians", were they? If you knew history, you'd know that's irrelevent to the conversation at hand, as evidenced by our conduct in the first Gulf war, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The US government takes a far different stance with regard to civilian casualties, in no small part to the flak we took from our own citizens for atrocities during Vietnam. You might as well claim we're just going to walk in and nuke Bagdad, because that's what the US does. They did it to Japan after all.

I can't stomach the self-righeous attitude of the author. A generous offer is to disarm, and make your country totally defensless? What nation on earth would accept that? South Africa. If you knew history, you'd know South Africa accepted the same conditions set forth by the UN to Iraq.

We're not saying Iraq needs to make their "country totally defenseless", we're saying they need to get rid of their weapons of mass destruction. Apple, meet orange.

Santcions, inspections, deterence, you know, stuff like that that's been working for 12 years. He hasn't attacked anyone since Kuwait. Those haven't been working. If you knew history, you'd know that Saddam was building WMD's during the early-mid 90's, while inspectors were in the country and it was not discovered until many years later.

Why do something about Iraq, and nothing about India and Pakistan? For the record, I publicly criticize our government for not doing so. Same goes with North Korea. Hopefully, after Bush is done with Iraq he will move on to North Korea, Pakistan and India. The reason you're asking for though is that Saddam has used his WMD's before, against the Iranians and against the Kurds.

What 12 year history? The 12 year history when Iraq didn't invade another country, didn't give wmd's to terrorists? The 12 years Iraq has been under almost constant surveillance, inspections and sanctions? That 12 years history? The twelve year history of Iraq breaking its promise to the UN of not producing WMD's. The 12 year history of UN planes in the no-fly zones being fired upon. The 6 year history of Iraq allowing inspectors to sites the Iraqi's picked, and then the 5 year history of them not allowing any inspections or surveillance. The 20-30 year history of brutally repressing his own people. If you actually knew that history, you'd know it's a stormy one.

I wish the US would do more to help people here and abroad, and stop helping corporations make profits. The US gives away more money than any other country in foreign aid. Keep in mind the US government is in the business of doing what its (voting) citizens tell it to do, and most of those citizens happen to work for corporations, and we are still the most generous nation on the planet.

If anyone wants sources to any of my information, feel free to ask. I'll happily oblige. My posts/rants tend to get bogged down enough without posting 10-20 links in it.

Borscht

03-17-2003, 11:49 PM

Thanks for the compliment, Pigeon! Glad you enjoyed it :)

As for you so-called "anti-war" types. Remember, the war is "not in your name".

You'd all rather middle-eastern civilians in Iraq, Iran, Syria, et al continue to be raped, tortured, and murdered by their own governments. Their women treated as animals and denied education.

You all find that preferable to supporting your own country and President. Or for you foreigners out there, the country that ensured you didn't grow up speaking German.

You sell your manhood cheap, that don't stand with America in the good fight.

Cuz the rock is about to be turned over, and what gets revealed is going to slap you in your sorry, cowardly faces.

There's going to be dancing in the streets, but it won't be to your pathetic song.

You losers are on the wrong side of morality, the wrong side of history, the wrong side.

Ataal

03-18-2003, 04:31 PM

I was going to refrain from posting since this is the first time I've even read this thread and missed out on most of the debates, but I figured I'd add my 2cp.

I consider myself to be somewhere in the center of the political scope, somewhat leaning to the right on most issues and leaning to the left on a few. I registered Republican mainly because of the primaries, otherwise I would've registered independant or some other less affiliated group. The resident democrat leaders here in Nevada have not shown any sign of progress since I've been of age to vote.

As for Iraq......

I would love to know all the facts, all the specifics, down to the very last detail. However, due to information leaking to iraqi leaders and the media wanting to portray a 'good story' instead of just giving us the facts, I know that will not happen.

I find myself in a personal conflict on whether we should be going to war or not. On one hand, there's a psycho dicator that has chemical weapons (for self defense, right? ::cough::). On the other hand, why is it our job to put our lives at risk to overthrow him?

Then, I catch wind of this articles like this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html

I personally would go over there to help fight if the armed forces would take me, but I have certain medical problems that prevent that from happening.

For me, it doesn't really matter what the 'root'(no linux pun intended) cause is for this war. Call it oil, call it war-mongering, call the prez a cowboy, I really don't care. If things really happen like what was in the article above, I cannot, as a fellow human being turn my back on these people. I really, really hope that all the talk of rebuilding and liberating the people of Iraq has truth in it.

The ideal situation would be that Saddam and his sons would take Bush up on his offer of exhile. I think that a good, humanitarian deed would be to sacrifice his desire for power and spare the lives of his military and civilians. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone on this planet thinks that will happen. A shame really.

The whole partisan war is what gets me riled up the most I think. Instead of making progress, both the republicans and democrats put up roadblocks just to make the other look bad so they'll get elected the next go-around. It drives me insane. Also, I don't care what a political figures says, I care about his/her actions. That whole Trent Lott(R) thing, they really had to read between the lines on that one. And just recently, James Moran(D) stepped down because of the comments about Jews. In neither case were they being malicious and most of what gets reported is taken WAY out of context. I take actions far more seriously. For instance, and I'm not picking on Clinton because of the bandwagon, it's just that I happen to have a video of him doing this on my desktop, so it's fresh in my mind. Anyway, he was attending a funeral for a foreign diplomat, as he was walking to his car he and his buddies were laughing hysterically, however once one of his secret service agents pointed out that there was a camera pointed at him, he had the audacity to immediately change his demeanor to a very sad and solemn man, and actually wiped a fake tear drop from his eye.(actually it was probably from laughing so hard).

See, with words you can take them out of context, you can minipulate them, and as we have seen recently, end an entire career over it. God I wish the partisan bickering would just end, I want to see some actual improvement not road-blocking.
Now I'm going to try and find some of the other points I wanted to make.

1) Openly serve in the military (admitting to being gay will get you dismissed).

2) Have any legal relationship status... I'm not talking religious status, I'm talking about spousal priveleges, whether they be related to taxes, healthcare, privacy, property rights..

3) In many states, sodomy is illegal... that kinda puts a damper on the gay sex life..

1. Unfortunate as it is, you cannot change the views of the heterosexual military personnel. I know it's probably becoming a cliche by now but the don't ask don't tell policy is for their own protection. In time, people will become more tolerant and the policy will change. But honestly, what does it matter that you can't be open in the military? Your job is to train and fight, sexual preference is irrelevant.

2. As I understand it, the gay rights movement isn't asking for just 'any' legal relationship status, they want it to be called marriage. There was a vote here in Nevada several years ago that would allow same-sex marriage, it would've passed had it been called something else, but due to religious connotations, it was shot down hard. I'm not a religous man by any means, in fact I'm an atheist, but I still respect those who are religious. Personally, I don't understand what the big deal is. What would it hurt to call it marriage, on the other hand, what would it hurt to call it something else so that it's recognized as a legal status?

3. Ok, this one was a stretch. You really had to think hard about this one just to make a total of three points, it just doesn't look as good if you only number one through two. Sodomy being illegal (for heterosexual and homosexual remember) is about as enforced as not being able to whistle under water in Vermont.

bigfoot

03-19-2003, 07:09 AM

I know this aint posted in the correct thread but WTH:) seems to fit.

Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Borscht

03-19-2003, 12:49 PM

Imagine

Ah, how sweet! Imagine, it would only take two more bullets and the Beatles could be together again.

board Lizard

03-19-2003, 09:00 PM

it has begun.

Borscht

03-20-2003, 03:42 PM

Indeed, and a masterful first stroke.

Early today several Scud missiles were fired by Iraqi forces at Kuwait City. Ineffectively, of course.

Scud missiles that are banned by 17 UN resolutions.

Scud missiles that Saddam insisted he didn't have.

Scud missiles that Hans "Keystone Cop" Blix couldn't find, yet were handy enough to be employed less than a day into the conflict.

Scud missiles all the moronic anti-war types insisted Saddam didn't have, or at the very least there was "inadequate evidence" that he might.

I invite all those folks to kindly STFU now, thxla~

futuro

03-20-2003, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Borscht
Indeed, and a masterful first stroke.

Early today several Scud missiles were fired by Iraqi forces at Kuwait City. Ineffectively, of course.

Scud missiles that are banned by 17 UN resolutions.

Scud missiles that Saddam insisted he didn't have.

Scud missiles that Hans "Keystone Cop" Blix couldn't find, yet were handy enough to be employed less than a day into the conflict.

Scud missiles all the moronic anti-war types insisted Saddam didn't have, or at the very least there was "inadequate evidence" that he might.

I invite all those folks to kindly STFU now, thxla~

I invite you to read this :

U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile

Right from CNN.COM.
U.S.: Patriots down Iraqi missiles (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/20/sprj.irq.kuwait.rockets/index.html)

And anyway, whether or not they have Scuds, VX gas, Antrax or anything else, this war is still unnecessary and barbaric.

How many people have died already for Bush's war? How many more will die? I know some of you don't care, because they're just "ragheads", but then again, we're just "american imperialists" to them...

Borscht

03-20-2003, 04:32 PM

And anyway, whether or not they have Scuds, VX gas, Antrax or anything else, this war is still unnecessary and barbaric.
You are like a religious zealot, totally impervious to reason or objective analysis. You cite CNN as a reliable source, when its bias and unreliability is conceded even among liberal journalists.

CNN's misreporting of the missile type was corrected earlier today. The Al Samoud missiles are, in any case, also banned and denied by Saddam Hussein. When some were discovered, Saddam tried to pretend they didn't actually have the range that caused their banishment in the first place.

How many people have died already for Bush's war? How many more will die?
Bush's war, lol. Your partisanship is showing. This isn't about anything to you but your hatred of George Bush.

So tell me, how many deaths are acceptable to liberate an oppressed people?

Many died to liberate Europe from NAZI imperialism, and Japanese imperialism. Was it too many? Would we have been wiser to simply concede Europe to Germany?

Saddam Hussein has killed 1,000,000 Muslims so far. He has killed more Muslims than anyone else in the world. Does that count in your calculus of death?

I know some of you don't care, because they're just "ragheads", but then again, we're just "american imperialists" to them...
Ragheads wear rags on their heads. It's an accurate, if insulting, definition.

Imperialism has a precise definition. One that cannot be applied to America. In other words, it matters not a whit that anyone calls us names, for they are just that. Insulting only, with no basis in truth.

Though the US media (willing accomplices of the DNC) have apparently imposed a media blackout on such things; I witnessed Khurds and Iraqis dancing in the streets and welcoming the American attack. The called us "saviors" and "liberators".

Apparently the BBC has decided not to blackout these images, although they still don't show the massively greater numbers of people at pro-America, pro-liberation rallies.

There is an interesting point about liberty that you have glanced into though. Allow me to share the words of a man who led another war, in which many lives were lost, to free an oppressed people. One which, based on your views, would have been better off not to have been fought.

"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty."
-Abraham Lincoln

Yueh

03-20-2003, 04:44 PM

Since the degeneration of this thread is obviously complete this little bit, attributed to Dennis Miller (but then don't believe anything you get off the internet), is very fitting...

"All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got
my insane little brain spinning like a roulette wheel. I enjoy reading
opinions from both sides but I have detected a hint of confusion from some
of you.

As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice
someone ever gave me. He told me about the kiss method ("keep it simple,
stupid!) Therefore, with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for
those who don't quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things a bit
and recognize a few important facts.

Here are 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important
issue:

1) Out of President Bush and Saddam Hussein ... Hussein is the bad guy.

2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing keep this
in mind, they have Libya heading the committee on Human Rights and Iraq
heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here

3) If you use Google search and type in "French military victories," your
reply will be "did you mean French military defeats?"

4) If your only anti-war slogan is "no war for oil," sue your school
district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the
education you deserve.

5) Saddam and bin laden will not seek United Nations approval before they
try to kill us.

6) Despite common belief, Martin Sheen is not the President. He plays one
on TV.

7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "infidel!" In addition, bin
laden wants you dead, too.

8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" but not in the danger
that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the dell computer dude.

9) We are not trying to liberate them.

10) Whether you are for military action or against it, our young men and
women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all
need to support them without reservation.

I hope this helps.

Dennis Miller...

futuro

03-20-2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Yueh
Since the degeneration of this thread is obviously complete this little bit, attributed to Dennis Miller (but then don't believe anything you get off the internet), is very fitting...

Dennis Miller is a comedian, and a failed sportscaster. I thought we weren't supposed to listen to celebrities? I thought they should keep their mouths shut and stick to their entertainment work.... Oh I guess that only applies when they disagree with the warmongers. When they agree, like Miller, or Ron Silver, then they can talk away, right?

board Lizard

03-20-2003, 07:46 PM

Good job in attack Dennis Miller and skipping over every other point made.. and all in the same post.

futuro

03-20-2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Borscht

You are like a religious zealot, totally impervious to reason or objective analysis. You cite CNN as a reliable source, when its bias and unreliability is conceded even among liberal journalists.

A religious zealot, huh? I bet that's the first time an atheist has been called that.

And I cited CNN, becasue that's the only mention I could find at the time about those missles. And pray tell, what "liberal journalists" have conceeded the unreliablity of CNN?

CNN's misreporting of the missile type was corrected earlier today. The Al Samoud missiles are, in any case, also banned and denied by Saddam Hussein. When some were discovered, Saddam tried to pretend they didn't actually have the range that caused their banishment in the first place.

Uh, huh. Sure. Either way, nobody has demonstrated to me where the US gets the right to impose it's idea of right and wrong on any other country. Perhaps you missed it, but the much cited war between Iran and Iraq in the eighties was started by Iran. Saddam used his chem weapons in that fight (the ones we gave him or apporved his purchase of) becasue Iran was the stronger country. Perhaps you also missed it, but Saddam hasn't attacked the US.

Bush's war, lol. Your partisanship is showing. This isn't about anything to you but your hatred of George Bush.

I've said before, I don't hate Bush. I hate his policies, but not him. Just because a lot of people (probably you included) hated Clinton doesn't mean I hate Bush. Stop projecting. What I hate is his macho, texas cowboy style of foreign policy, that's making America one of the most distrusted countries in the world. I also hate his domestic economic policy, but that's OT in this discussion.

So tell me, how many deaths are acceptable to liberate an oppressed people?

So tell me, how many countries is Bush planning to "liberate"? How many innocent civilians in those countries are going to die for Bush's ego? How many people will die to the bully who doesn't like the way they do things "over there"? If I lived in another country, I'd be shaking in my boots. Displease Bush, and he'll "liberate" you.

Many died to liberate Europe from NAZI imperialism, and Japanese imperialism. Was it too many? Would we have been wiser to simply concede Europe to Germany?

Strawman. That's what any comparison between Iraq and The Axis is. Perhaps you missed it, but Japan attacked us, and Germany immediatley declared war on us. Iraq hasn't, and couldn't (sanely). Germany had already conquered much of Europe, Japan much of the Far east. The threat was real and apparant. Iraq is a weak thrird world country that might be able to attack us in some way with wmd's, but it would stupid and suicidal for them to do it.

Saddam Hussein has killed 1,000,000 Muslims so far. He has killed more Muslims than anyone else in the world. Does that count in your calculus of death?

CIte? Source? And in any case, there are many dictators in the world with large bodycounts, some of which we support.

Ragheads wear rags on their heads. It's an accurate, if insulting, definition.

Your bias and bigotry is showing. They're anything but rags. Except for the poor people who can't afford better, the finest linens are used for to protect their heads from the rays of the sun. And the funny thing is, many westerners, when there, do the same exact thing to protect themselves in the 100 degree plus desert heat.

Imperialism has a precise definition. One that cannot be applied to America. In other words, it matters not a whit that anyone calls us names, for they are just that. Insulting only, with no basis in truth.

Oh, I guess Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the minor outlying pacific Islands, Hawaii, and all the other US imperialist escapades don't dount, do they. Even the "Manifest Destiny" was an imperialist doctrine.

Look, I love this country, but I acknowledge when it's wrong. It's been wrong in the past, and it's wrong now.

Though the US media (willing accomplices of the DNC) have apparently imposed a media blackout on such things; I witnessed Khurds and Iraqis dancing in the streets and welcoming the American attack. The called us "saviors" and "liberators".

"Wiling accomplices of the DNC"??? Don't make me laugh. Did you happen to see the link I gave previously of the RNC orchestrated bashing of Gore over the invented "I invented the internet" quote?

And you have a cite for this "dancing in the streets" stuff? A quick search revealed nothing on this. Even the BBC site shows only that the Kurds are very nervous about a Trukish invasion of northern Iraq.

There is an interesting point about liberty that you have glanced into though. Allow me to share the words of a man who led another war, in which many lives were lost, to free an oppressed people. One which, based on your views, would have been better off not to have been fought.

<Snip Lincoln quote> Even then, the US did not fire the first shot, the CSA fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. The Southern state had ceeded from the union already. Notice that even then, President Lincoln did not invade Virginia. Only when the South demonstrated that it was ready for war and attacked the North's garrison at Fort Sumter did the US begin a war.

And to blow another hole in yet another failed analogy, at the time of the start of the Civil War, slavery was legal in the North.

futuro

03-20-2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by board Lizard
Good job in attack Dennis Miller and skipping over every other point made.. and all in the same post.

I didn't "attack" Dennis Miller. He's a comedian and a failed sportscaster. Those are facts. Many people have chastized many other celebrities for voicing their opinion when they happen to disagree with the war, I'm just applying the same standard.

And if you want a line by line addressing of his "points", fine. Although I don't know what effect it will have on someone who posted this gem " walk up to one of these ragheaded fundamentalists and try to hug him, then watch how quickly he kills you both with his homemade suicide bomb"...

Miller's points refuted.

1) Out of President Bush and Saddam Hussein ... Hussein is the bad guy.

A little too simplistic, don't you think, Dennis? Couldn't they both be bads guys? Coudn't they both be a little good and a little bad? Sure, Hussein has done some bad things, but after all, he hasn't attacked the US. Bush has attacked Iraq.

2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing keep this n mind, they have Libya heading the committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here

Um, no... Iraq was supposed to lead the GDC, simply by a pre-set rotation, but they've since skipped over them. And what's wrong with Lybia leading a Human Rights committee? Perhaps they'll learn something about the subject.

3) If you use Google search and type in "French military victories," your reply will be "did you mean French military defeats?"

Nice, Miller. French bashing... And bullshit French bashing too. Perhaps you never heard of Napoleon, who used the French Army to conquer most of Europe?

4) If your only anti-war slogan is "no war for oil," sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.

It's not my only one. And I'm not too thrilled with the implied insult, either. It just goes to show, pomposity is Miller's stock in trade.

5) Saddam and bin laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.

Yet another attempt to link Hussein and Bin Laden. News Flash : Saddam hasn't tried to kill us, we're trying to kill him. And another news flash : Given the choice, Bin Laden would kill Saddam before any US citizen, since Hussein is an infidel leading an Islamic country, a more serious crime (to him) than whatever the US is doing.

6) Despite common belief, Martin Sheen is not the President. He plays one on TV

Despite common belief, Dennis Miller is not a political analyst with years of serious study on domestic and international relations. He doesn't even play one on TV.

7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "infidel!" In addition, bin laden wants you dead, too.

Wow, what a reason to invade Iraq! Bon Laden wants Saddam dead too! Nice of us to help him. Oh, this isn't what he meant is it? Wat he meant was something like "all those ragheads are the same, kill them all", right? Oh, ok.

8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the dell computer dude.

Why stop? He gets some good shit, Dennis. Perhaps you should try some, maybe you would shed some of these violent tendencies. Perhaps you might make better points if you didn't impune the intelligence of your opponents. Since Scalfia financed the entire Paula Jones lawsuit, and paid dozens of peple to dig up shit on Clinton, and noone has managed to link Hussein to Al Queada, perhaps you need to hang out with people who have a clue...

9) We are not trying to liberate them.

Interesting... Bush says we are, you say we're not... Do you have an inside track on what Rove, Chaney and Rumsfeld are really after?

10) Whether you are for military action or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We al need to support them without reservation.

No, they're not there fighting to defend our right to speak out. Our First Amendment rights have not been threatened by Hussein. I'm not sure what they're there for, but I want them home NOW. We have no business there, and we need to get them home ASAP. Already we have lost several of our good people, and I cry for their lives. Lives lost for nothing, just like Veit Nam.

Yueh

03-20-2003, 09:42 PM

A religious zealot, huh? I bet that's the first time an atheist has been called that.

Religious zealot, idealogical zealot. Do you have to profess an 'accepted' religion to be a zealot? I think your next post answers that well. Thank you for saving us a lot of typing!

futuro

03-20-2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Yueh

Religious zealot, idealogical zealot. Do you have to profess an 'accepted' religion to be a zealot? I think your next post answers that well. Thank you for saving us a lot of typing!

Uh, huh. I'd rather be a zealot for peace, than a zealot for war. And attacking a country because they "could" or "might" attack us is something that is against what I stand for and what the US used to stand for.

But I love how you brush off all my points with one sentence. Don't you have anything to support your stance on this war? Are you so gullible that you accept what the Bush Administration says as gospel? They've continually implied a link between Hussein and Bin Laden without any proof, without any evidence. They've built up this minor country into some kind of international powerhouse that could bring the US to it's knees. Are you that unsure of US power and influence that you've been scared into this useless war? And let me tell you, the rest of the world is already sick of Bush's foreign policy, just 18 months after 9/11/01. He squandered the goodwill of the entire world on this cowboy mission to avenge his father, take Iraq's oil (we're already promising oil revenues to countries that help us), and bulid up his chances at a second term. And people like you are swallowing his BS hook, line and sinker.

Chaney and Rumsfeld wrote a letter to Clinton urging him to invade Iraq. This war has been brewing in their minds for at least 5 years. And Haliburton (Chaney's company) has gotten a $900 million contract to clean up after the war, while the Republican Congress is ready to cut almost the same amount from veteran's benefits. Follow the money, man!

board Lizard

03-20-2003, 11:48 PM

know whats funny? with a single sentence i made futuro write a long and boring post. must have taken him a good 10 minutes while taking me a whole 27 seconds

p.s. i didn't read it

futuro

03-20-2003, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by board Lizard
know whats funny? with a single sentence i made futuro write a long and boring post. must have taken him a good 10 minutes while taking me a whole 27 seconds

p.s. i didn't read it

Good for you. Keep your mind closed. You know what's funny? You

board Lizard

03-20-2003, 11:54 PM

^
|
|
|
didn't read it

Borscht

03-21-2003, 12:04 AM

nobody has demonstrated to me where the US gets the right to impose it's idea of right and wrong on any other country
Saddam invaded Kuwait. The United States declared war on Saddam and expelled him from Kuwait.

When it became clear to Saddam that the duration of his life was now measured in hours, he surrendered.

His surrender was accepted, and conditions of surrender were codified as is traditionally done in such cases. A long precedent for conditions of surrender exists, dating back to Hamurabi and ancient Sumaria just in case you find something suspicious there as well.

Within two years Saddam had violated all conditions of his surrender. The United Nations, having been the authorizing body and the administrator of the conditions of surrender, began issuing resolutions outlining Saddam's violations and demanding conformance, etc.

They repeated this several times over the ensuing ten years.

Having violated the conditions of surrender, Saddam has committed an act of war. Under every legal code of every nation on the globe, our hostilities against Saddam are just and legal.

To suggest otherwise is to demonstate nothing but your own ignorance of the entire subject.

By suggesting that imposing liberty on an oppressed people is something to be shunned, you demonstrate that you are not only ignorant, but an utter moron.

Keep your mind closed.
You give yourself far too much credit. Keeping one's mind closed to your insipid, sophomoric drivel is akin to keeping a screen door closed against the insects of the night.

board Lizard

03-21-2003, 12:07 AM

To suggest that imposing liberty on an oppressed people is something to be shunned, you demonstrate that you are not only ignorant, but an utter moron.

I bet that if he lived in the mid 1800s he would have been a southern slave owner and shouting that same line.

hhh

03-21-2003, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by futuro

A little too simplistic, don't you think, Dennis? Couldn't they both be bads guys? Coudn't they both be a little good and a little bad? Sure, Hussein has done some bad things, but after all, he hasn't attacked the US. Bush has attacked Iraq.

Your right. He hasn't attacked the US, not directly, at least, and we aren't going to give him a chance to.

You can't tell me that given the chance, he wouldn't do it.

By the way, the Internet isn't the be-all end-all of everything. There isn't a site and source for everything, somethings you just have to see with your own eyes and feel yourself. Try talking to some vets that were there in the early 90s and seen the torture beds and the like that was setup. Get a feel for what was going on. Then tell me you don't really understand why we are there. A site listed above from the times/uk was a good example.

Borscht

03-21-2003, 12:53 AM

I've said before, I don't hate Bush.
Yes, you've said a lot of things. Hmm...let's examine the record:

If there was no oil, Bush would't give a flying fuck about Iraq, would he?

If anyone is playing a game with US soldiers lives, it would have to be Bush.

"Oh, I have a polyp in my rectum? Let's cut taxes!". Whoops, that last one was Reagan, but don't think Bush wouldn't try it too.

Not with oil-man Bush in charge, we won't.

I guess [Bush] thinks if you're poor or out of work, you don't need money, but if you're rich enough to own stocks, you need more....

How many innocent civilians in those countries are going to die for Bush's ego?

Displease Bush, and he'll "liberate" you.
Ah yes, how silly of me to have interpreted any hatred of Bush. I can't imagine what I was thinking.

I'd rather be a zealot for peace, than a zealot for war.
I accept your retraction then, of the idiotic revelation that you were an atheist. A statement which had no bearing on the substance of my comment. As you acknowledge by implication in your own words above.

And by the way, chump. Peace isn't absence of war. Peace is absence of threat.

intelligent, well-informed people can come to a different conclusion than them.
Sir, you are neither of those things. You are a partisan hack, eyes wide shut, impervious to fact or reason. Spewing the stock liberal mantra, straight from the playbook. Not an original comment of your own, "answering" questions with obtuse questions, dodging all substance.

There is precisely *one* liberal in this whole affair with intellect, honesty, and courage. His name is Tony Blair.

Pigeon

03-21-2003, 03:21 PM

Oh, I guess Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the minor outlying pacific Islands, Hawaii, and all the other US imperialist escapades don't dount, do they. Even the "Manifest Destiny" was an imperialist doctrine. If you knew history, you'd know Puerto Rico is given the choice between becoming the 51st state or becoming their own sovereign country, or simply staying the way they are now. They do not pay income taxes or sales taxes to the US govt, although I think import taxes/tariffs still apply. I'm too lazy to research this atm, but I'm under the impression the Virgin Islands/Guam are the same way. Hawaii and Alaska are, on a cultural level, the same as the rest of the United States.

Yes, the US was imperialist in the early 20th century, but saying we are still an imperialist country begs the question, wtf is your definition of imperialism? Do you consider Japan to be an imperialist nation for keeping control over Hokkaido?
Given the choice, Bin Laden would kill Saddam before any US citizen, since Hussein is an infidel leading an Islamic country, a more serious crime (to him) than whatever the US is doing. Granted, it's completely irrelevent to the topic of conversation, but... why did 9/11 happen in New York and not in Bagdad?

Borscht

03-21-2003, 06:02 PM

This link illustrates far more than mere words the true character and caliber of the so-called "anti war" protestors. This is the recent rally in San Francisco.

You will need Quicktime and a high-speed connection to view this video.

http://www.brain-terminal.com/video/sf-2003-03-15/quicktime-hq.html

Fun to watch Futuro's fellow travellers in action :)

Saddam's "useful idiots".

TDES

03-21-2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Borscht
This link illustrates far more than mere words the true character and caliber of the so-called "anti war" protestors. This is the recent rally in San Francisco.

Saddam's "useful idiots".

Check out Protest Warrior (http://www.protestwarrior.com)

The picture gallery is priceless. Might have to buy one of those T-shirts .. hehe

Joe Blow

03-21-2003, 06:51 PM

I wish all these stupid ass people would stop coming to San Francisco's Financial District and take it to Golden Gate Park. It's causing a utter nightmare for people like me who have to work there. The streets are all closed off, the stupid idiots lie down in front of busses and clog up the public transit system. The subway is packed like sardines because it's the only way anyone can get around. What they really need to do is look for a job. I hate to say it but it's been going on for a week now and it's really starting to get old.

Borscht

03-21-2003, 09:54 PM

How many innocent civilians in those countries are going to die for Bush's ego?
A minute fraction of those that have already been murdered for Saddam's ego, or to satisfy his son's penchant for serial rape/murder.

futuro

03-21-2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Borscht
Saddam invaded Kuwait. The United States declared war on Saddam and expelled him from Kuwait.

Um, sorry. We didn't declare war against Iraq. Last time I looked at the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall a war declaration from Congress for either war.

Having violated the conditions of surrender, Saddam has committed an act of war. Under every legal code of every nation on the globe, our hostilities against Saddam are just and legal.

No war was ever declared by the US. We were acting as agents of the UN in 1991. The UN has refused to authorize this military action, and since we weren't the party that imposed the conditions of surrender, we don't have the right to impose our own will on the UN and Iraq.

To suggest otherwise is to demonstate nothing but your own ignorance of the entire subject.

Who authorized the war in 1991? The US? No. It was the UN. Who negotiated the surrender, the US? No again, the UN did. Who is invading Iraq right now? The UN? No. The US. If you want to argue legalities, keep your parties straight. Lacking UN authorization for this invasion puts us in the position of vigilantes, taking the law into our own hands.

And speaking of ignorance, I'm not the one who stated that the US "declared war on Saddam". There was no declaration of war, and the US hasn't declared war on anyone since 1941. Every military action we have engaged in since has been un-constitutional. The problem goes deeper than just this "war", it goes right to a thing called "the Imperial Presidency", a subject that has worried constitutional scholars for years. This is just the latest example.

By suggesting that imposing liberty on an oppressed people is something to be shunned, you demonstrate that you are not only ignorant, but an utter moron.

Now there's an oxymoron if I ever heard one... "imposing liberty". That's an absolute classic. "You'll be free whether you want to or not, because we say so!" My beer just came out my nose, I'm laughing so hard.

And no, I'm not suggesting it should be shunned. People who want liberty in their country should be helped to acheive that goal. But bombing them into oblivion isn't helping. Setting fire to half of a city of 4 million isn't "liberating" them, it's killing them.

You give yourself far too much credit. Keeping one's mind closed to your insipid, sophomoric drivel is akin to keeping a screen door closed against the insects of the night.

Your lack of a substantial argument is duly noted.

cryptorad

03-21-2003, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by futuro

And to blow another hole in yet another failed analogy, at the time of the start of the Civil War, slavery was legal in the North.

Text of Pennsylvania's 1780 Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery
Following is the full text of the act which doomed slavery in Pennsylvania. Enacted on March 1st, 1780, with a vote of 34 to 21, this law was partially the work of William Brown, a Pennsylvania legislator from Lancaster County.

Link is here: http://www.afrolumens.org/slavery/gradual.html

Well.. you were close. What's 80 years among friends. ;)

futuro

03-21-2003, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by hhh

Your right. He hasn't attacked the US, not directly, at least, and we aren't going to give him a chance to.

OK, so let's not give North Korea a chance to, or Iran a chance to, or Russia, China, France, Germany, Jordan, Pakistan, Sweeden, Switzerland, Libya, South Africa, (...) a chance to.

And the implication I get from your "not directly" is that Iraq was somehow invovled in any terrorist attack against US properties or even 9/11. Sorry, there's no evidence that there was any involvement by them. Even the CIA and the State Department say so.

You can't tell me that given the chance, he wouldn't do it.

No, I can't. And you can't tell me that given the chance, he would. As a matter of fact, he's had 12 years of chances, and he hasn't. What makes you think that he would have? Note that since you're the one here that's posulating an attack by Iraq against the US, you have the burden of supplying evidence to support that position. Otherwise, you could invent a threat against the US from Iceland and all I'd have to do is ask you for some kind of evidence to support your invented threat.

Got any evidence to support your assertion that Saddam would attack the US?

By the way, the Internet isn't the be-all end-all of everything. There isn't a site and source for everything, somethings you just have to see with your own eyes and feel yourself. Try talking to some vets that were there in the early 90s and seen the torture beds and the like that was setup. Get a feel for what was going on. Then tell me you don't really understand why we are there. A site listed above from the times/uk was a good example.

Hmm, you're telling me on one hand that the internet isn't the be-all and end all of everthing, yet you then cite an internet source... interesting inconsistency, that...

But, I've never denied that Saddam has done some bad things. I've also never denied that plenty of other dictators around the world have done bad things. But the funny thing is, the one dictator that's sitting on the world's second largest oil reserve is the one we picked to "liberate". Curiuos, isn't it? Especially since Halliburton, the company that Dick Chaney was CEO of, has laready been granted a $900 million contract to "clean up" after the war. Doesn't stuff like this strike you as something that needs more light of day? Doesn't it make you think that maybe this war isn't about what Bush Inc. says it's about?

futuro

03-21-2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Borscht

Ah yes, how silly of me to have interpreted any hatred of Bush. I can't imagine what I was thinking.

Can you refute any of those things as misrepresenting Bush's positions on the relevant subjects? I think not. And since you can't (since you didn't even try), they don't indicate hatred of Bush, just his policies. Unlike others, I can separate issues from persons.

I accept your retraction then, of the idiotic revelation that you were an atheist. A statement which had no bearing on the substance of my comment. As you acknowledge by implication in your own words above.

Nothing implied, I was merely stating that I'd rather be a zealot for peace than a zealot for war. I happen to be neither. I happen to think that war is a last resort, and this war isn't being waged as a last resort.

And who said I was retracting being an atheist?

And by the way, chump. Peace isn't absence of war. Peace is absence of threat.

Get a dictionary, chump... Number one definition of "peace" at dictionary.com : The absence of war or other hostilities.

And a coward sees "threats" in everything.

Sir, you are neither of those things. You are a partisan hack, eyes wide shut, impervious to fact or reason. Spewing the stock liberal mantra, straight from the playbook. Not an original comment of your own, "answering" questions with obtuse questions, dodging all substance.

Thank you for showing how you shove me in your little box labeled "liberal" and dismiss everything I say as some grand "liberal playbook" quotation. You just proved my point, that some people can't accept that intellgent, well-informed people can come to different conclusions than them. You showed it by "spewing" an attack on me by claiming that my ideas aren't my own, but come from some "liberal playbook". FYI, I've been urging a poster on usenet to come up with the "liberal handbook" (as he calls it) for over a year. He has yet to produce it. And I'll bet you can't guess why he can't produce it... Because it doesn't exist... it's just a figment of some people's imaginations that they use to denigrate their opponents when they lack arguments against the points raised.

There is precisely *one* liberal in this whole affair with intellect, honesty, and courage. His name is Tony Blair.

Oh gee... why is that? Cause he seems to agree with you? How nice of you!

futuro

03-22-2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Pigeon

If you knew history, you'd know Puerto Rico is given the choice between becoming the 51st state or becoming their own sovereign country, or simply staying the way they are now. They do not pay income taxes or sales taxes to the US govt, although I think import taxes/tariffs still apply. I'm too lazy to research this atm, but I'm under the impression the Virgin Islands/Guam are the same way. Hawaii and Alaska are, on a cultural level, the same as the rest of the United States.

Re : Puerto Rico. I wasn't referring to how it's treated now, jsut how it was acquired. And I'll grant you your impression of the VI/Guam/Hawaii. The point is that they were acquired imperialistically, which you don't seem to dispute.

Yes, the US was imperialist in the early 20th century, but saying we are still an imperialist country begs the question, wtf is your definition of imperialism? Do you consider Japan to be an imperialist nation for keeping control over Hokkaido

Not "my" definition, but the dictionary.com one "The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations"

If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly the stated "reasons" for the invasion of Iraq, isn't it?

I'm not familiar with the situation in Hokkaido, and I'm too lazy to look it up :)

Granted, it's completely irrelevent to the topic of conversation, but... why did 9/11 happen in New York and not in Bagdad?

I'll throw you a typical "Rumsfeld" answer for this "I don't know, why don't you ask them?"

Ok, I can't let that lay there like that. Of course, the WTC was a much more visible target than anything in Iraq. And of course, Bin Laden is demonstrably quite more insane than Saddam, so other than that, I don't know. Perhaps I was wrong on that point. Perhaps our troops in Saudi Arabia are more offensive to him than Saddam. It's anybody's guess. That still doesn't negate that fact that his letter called Saddam "infidel".

cryptorad

03-22-2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by futuro

Um, sorry. We didn't declare war against Iraq. Last time I looked at the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall a war declaration from Congress for either war.

You missed it.

The Declaration of War process was effectively replaced by the War Powers Act. But the SPECIFIC information you seek may be found HERE:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/

War Powers Act:
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

In either case Congress voted to support both the UN resolution and the use of the military to do it on January 12th, 1991. Specifically for the resolution of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. There was never a call for the Congressional Declaration of War process because it was not needed. I think you should stop calling our due process 'illegal' if you simply don't understand how it works.

Here's a couple of interesting statements you should read. ONE is a war declaration that SHOULD matter to you. If you are a US citizen that is. The second one is just, yet again, more evidence why Saddam is a threat to the US. Boring stuff for you.. I'm sure;

http://www.islamic-news.co.uk/declaration.htm

http://fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910112-terror.htm

futuro

03-22-2003, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by Borscht
This link illustrates far more than mere words the true character and caliber of the so-called "anti war" protestors. This is the recent rally in San Francisco.

You will need Quicktime and a high-speed connection to view this video.

http://www.brain-terminal.com/video/sf-2003-03-15/quicktime-hq.html

Fun to watch Futuro's fellow travellers in action :)

Saddam's "useful idiots".

You paint with a broad brush, don't you? Considering that I'm on the other coast, and you're picking out the one demonstartion that turned violent, out of the many demonstrations that were quite peaceful, I'm assuming that it's ok to lump you in with the far-right militia organizations who support the overthrow of the US government, right? Is your hero Timothy McVeigh? Or perhaps you want to be associated with the arbortion clinic bombers, or the people who want the US to take over the entire world?

Oh, maybe you don't like that, huh?

futuro

03-22-2003, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by cryptorad

Text of Pennsylvania's 1780 Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery
Following is the full text of the act which doomed slavery in Pennsylvania. Enacted on March 1st, 1780, with a vote of 34 to 21, this law was partially the work of William Brown, a Pennsylvania legislator from Lancaster County.

Link is here: http://www.afrolumens.org/slavery/gradual.html

Well.. you were close. What's 80 years among friends. ;)

Sure, what's the USA law versus one state's (or a couple, I'm aware that a few northern states had outlawed slavery prior to the civil war) laws among friends.

However, my point was that until the Emancipation Proclaimation(1863), slavery was legal in the US. And also, what you posted doesn't negate my point that the CSA fired the first shot, does it?

hhh

03-22-2003, 01:37 AM

>>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hhh

Your right. He hasn't attacked the US, not directly, at least, and we aren't going to give him a chance to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, so let's not give North Korea a chance to
<<<<

There is probably sufficent reason to hypothesize they will be attended to next if they continue to act up. What a smart idea to have a "military first" attiude while your country's people starve, then try to blame the US because we cut of humanitarian aid.

>Otherwise, you could invent a threat against the US from Iceland and all I'd have to do is ask you for some kind of evidence to support your invented threat.<

A small island who has no miltary (whose actual armed forces are the IDF, which is backed by the US) is no threat compared to the 4th/5th/whatever most powerful nation Iraq was before the bombs started dropping.

I know, I know, bad example but point is the same right?

This man has killed own people. He killed Kuwaitis. He killed Israeli's. Would he attack the US and kill Americans? Is there any reason to think he wouldn't?

>Hmm, you're telling me on one hand that the internet isn't the be-all and end all of everthing,<

Your correct, I did.

> yet you then cite an internet source...<

Again, your correct, I did. 2 for 2.

I also said that site was an EXAMPLE of how things were, and to talk to vets who WERE THERE for an understanding of what really went on (that you can't get a full understanding of off the Internet).

You selectively ignored this.

>But the funny thing is, the one dictator that's sitting on the world's second largest oil reserve is the one we picked to "liberate". Curiuos, isn't it?<

Its not curious at all.

I never suggested that our government isn't corrupt.

You know whats funny? When the government is trying to pass laws about companies accounting policies and such so that we dont have more Worldcom's and Enron's, when the government itself has all sorts of "cooking the books" problems.

Nothing is black & white. I don't love my gf JUST because of her amazing personality. We ALL have alterier motives/agendas. For the US, oil(money) is very likely one of them.

Why do you suppose France and Russia are SO against this thing anyway? They have a lot of financial interests already tied up in Iraq, and us going there hurts their interests. Oh well, the world is going to hate the US whether we DO or DON'T do anything about situations such as this, so why not also try to make something positive out of it for us too?

We do have plenty of untapped oil reserves in the US too. But as long as we can use theirs, we will have ours for a rainy day. This planning is very sound. (And yes I'm aware that a recent plan to drill into more of Alaska's oil was shot down by the wildlife people. Given an economic crisis, I think the result would be different).

Borscht

03-22-2003, 09:34 AM

You paint with a broad brush, don't you? Considering that I'm on the other coast, and you're picking out the one demonstartion that turned violent, out of the many demonstrations that were quite peaceful
Neither that video nor anything I've ever said spoke to violence at these demonstrations. I didn't even know there was any violence.

Yet you redirect the obvious, i.e. that the "anti war" demonstration has nothing to do with war and everything to do with hateful anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-capitalist sentiment. And that everyone involved is an utter moron and in no way represent the mainstream of *any* culture in existence. Well, France perhaps.

Somehow I suspect you didn't even bother to view the video. As it's hard to comprehend how anyone, even you, could have totally missed the obvious.

Here is a video of the New York protest, the similarities should be obvious to everyone but Futuro. And nobody should notice any violence, except for maybe Futuro.

http://www.brain-terminal.com/video/nyc-2003-02-15/quicktime-hq.html

Futuro, you have demonstrated the totality of your brand of utter vacuousness. You have ceased being amusing. You've dodged every shred of substance in my many posts directed at you, and chosen to jump off into some obscure area that I didn't even allude to.

All of your hasty replies are filled with the sophomoric silliness that is your trademark. Again you demonstrate how impervious to reason and truth that you are, and how you simply dance away from every objective fact.

As I've said before, I don't argue with fools and I don't throw pearls before swine. Welcome to that nice, quiet place where Jeeves lives! You have no power here, be off with you.

We didn't declare war against Iraq.
ROFLMAO! This loser would argue that the sky is *not* blue, simply because it happened to be a cloudy day.

Borscht

03-22-2003, 10:11 AM

For the US, oil(money) is very likely one of them.
I agree with your general precepts, however I would respectfully caution about accepting or conceding the premises of your opponent on these matters.

That you have desires for your girlfriend that are not all selfless, does not make them ulterior. "Purely selfish" is not generally virtuous, but there is a clear distinction between that term and what you are speaking to.

Anyone who claims that America's goals in the Kuwait conflict, or the current Iraqi conflict, are oil money is demonstrating their complete ignorance of reality.

During the Kuwait conflict, oil prices dropped precipitously to a low of $17.00 a barrel for crude. Anyone invested in oil in those days took a major bath.

Crude prices are dropping like a rock even now, and began their drop in the hours just before the war. The economic forces that cause this are identical, and there will be many deflated stock portfolios as things continue. This is a boon to the oil consumer, but a total kick in the shorts for the oil distributor or investor.

We seek to preserve the Iraqi oil fields to conserve those resources for their rightful owners, the Iraqi people.

America has a long tradition of good stewardship and selfless sacrifice for the free world. We have asked for nothing from those countries we have saved or liberated, except enough ground to bury our dead. Only the pathetic leftists talk about "costs" where liberty is concerned.

As a people, we are the most generous by any measure you care to devise. Do not let the aberational phenomena of the Clinton administration, or the current decrepit wantoness of the Democrat party lead you into believing that all our government is corrupt.

The nuances of difference between the opposing sides are not subtle, but rather easily discernable.

homer

03-22-2003, 03:31 PM

If people would actually read all the resolutions that have been passed since 1991, they all give authorization in attacking Iraq if the points in it are not met. Time and time again Saddam has decieved, lied, and bullshitted his way out o fconflict. He even went as far to say he had no scud missles anymore.

Well, if that was true, where the hell are the scuds coming from now that he is firing?

The Resolutions, even teh most recent one passed last year, gives us the authority to do what we are doing. Why do you think the U.N. Sec General has not condemned or condoned what we are doing? All he has said is he hopes for a quick and decisive end to the conflict so humanitarian aid can be started.

If the resolutions had not authorized it, the U.N. would have already brougth charges against the U.S. and the other 39 countries of the coalition to the world court.

Please have your facts.

hhh

03-22-2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Borscht

Crude prices are dropping like a rock even now, and began their drop in the hours just before the war. The economic forces that cause this are identical, and there will be many deflated stock portfolios as things continue. This is a boon to the oil consumer, but a total kick in the shorts for the oil distributor or investor.

Crude started dropping when Bush made his 48 hour speech, as then the "uncertainty" went away. The market hates uncertainty.

The whole time oil was approaching $40 a barrel in the previous months, oil stocks were not doing at all well, basically holding true that whatever situation was going to be tempoary and short.

I think oil closed at 26.91 in NY on Friday, but I only do stocks and some options so I don't know for sure. However, what I'm trying to point out here is the "relative" price of oil hasn't changed, atleast not yet it hasn't. The amount in % oil has come down, is almost directly proportional to the % the US $ has strengthened against the euro/yen/et al. recently.

Hidden ajenda? Maybe. It all remains to be seen. I know the report I read about a southern village welcoming the Americans and them saying "we are happy to rid outselves of Saddam" makes it all more refreshing.

futuro

03-22-2003, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by cryptorad

You missed it.

The Declaration of War process was effectively replaced by the War Powers Act. But the SPECIFIC information you seek may be found HERE:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/

War Powers Act:
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

In either case Congress voted to support both the UN resolution and the use of the military to do it on January 12th, 1991. Specifically for the resolution of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. There was never a call for the Congressional Declaration of War process because it was not needed. I think you should stop calling our due process 'illegal' if you simply don't understand how it works.

Here's a couple of interesting statements you should read. ONE is a war declaration that SHOULD matter to you. If you are a US citizen that is. The second one is just, yet again, more evidence why Saddam is a threat to the US. Boring stuff for you.. I'm sure;

http://www.islamic-news.co.uk/declaration.htm

http://fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910112-terror.htm

OK, so you showed me some things I already knew about. The stuff about Congress shirking it's responsibility isn't new to me. Those "laws" and "resolutions" are obviously unconstitiutional, as any clear reading of the Constitution indicates. By giving up their responsibility, Congress has allocated more power to the Executive than the framers intended. Some strange comments in the laws and resolutions claiming that things move so fast these days that Congress can't possibly get together in time to declare war is totally idiotic. This whole concept has yet to be tested in the courts. I'm been amazed that some simple law passed by one Congress has the power to override the Constitution.

Also, a "declaration of war" by an individual, is kind of ridiculous for the US to take seriously, don't you think?

But then again, even if you take it seriously, Bin Laden isn't Hussein, is he? So what was your point in posting that, except to confuse the issue?

futuro

03-23-2003, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by hhh
>>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hhh

Your right. He hasn't attacked the US, not directly, at least, and we aren't going to give him a chance to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, so let's not give North Korea a chance to
<<<<

There is probably sufficent reason to hypothesize they will be attended to next if they continue to act up.

"Continue to act up"??? What are you, their parents? It's funny that everybody here seems to think it fine for the US to have the weapons that we deem necessary for our defense, but other countries can't do the same. And here's a news flash for you : the US is just one of 170+ countries in the world. We're not anybody's keepers, and we're not anybody's parents. Being the most powerful nation in the world doesn't give us the right to dicate to the rest of the world how they should act.

What a smart idea to have a "military first" attiude while your country's people starve, then try to blame the US because we cut of humanitarian aid.

You're absolutely right. The US has starving people, and instead of ensuring that each US citizen has food and shelter, we're spending billions on invading a country that hasn't attacked us.

Why do you think that other countries should take care of their less fortunate citizens when we don't? Why do you condemn Iraq and North Korea for spending money on their militaries at the expense of their poor, starving citizens when we're doing the exact same thing?

I'm disqusted at the inconsistency.

A small island who has no miltary (whose actual armed forces are the IDF, which is backed by the US) is no threat compared to the 4th/5th/whatever most powerful nation Iraq was before the bombs started dropping.

I know, I know, bad example but point is the same right?

Boy, pick out Iceland from my elisped list of countries. Those [...] means that I didn't feel like typing in all the countries in the world.

Talk about selective quoting....

Anyway, you failed to address the point. Bush's new foreign policy seems to be that if you don't do what the US says, you're toast. How do you tink that plays to the citizens of the world?

Doesn't that make us look like the world's biggest bullies?

This man has killed own people.

You're right. He presided over the deaths of almost 150 during his term as Governor of Texas...

Oops, you were talking about Hussein, weren't you? You must mean the Kurds, who allied with the country that attacked his (Iran).

He killed Kuwaitis. He killed Israeli's. Would he attack the US and kill Americans? Is there any reason to think he wouldn't?

What reason do you think he would be stupid enough to? Sure, he killed Iraelis, when their ally was drinving his forces out of Kuwait. And sure, he killed Kuwaitis, but isn't Bush killing Iraqis? Why is one ok, and the other is bad?

>Hmm, you're telling me on one hand that the internet isn't the be-all and end all of everthing,<

Your correct, I did.

> yet you then cite an internet source...<

Again, your correct, I did. 2 for 2.

I also said that site was an EXAMPLE of how things were, and to talk to vets who WERE THERE for an understanding of what really went on (that you can't get a full understanding of off the Internet).

I've talked to a few. And sure, the things he did to people that opposed him are terrible. But no more terrible than bombing a city of 5 million. Why do you think one is good and the other bad? Why aren't both bad? And don't give me the line about the US "liberating" the Iraqi people. Killing them isn't "liberating" them, it's killing them.

You selectively ignored this.

No, you selectively posted source that you claim is "true". I could post a source that shows how a Kuwaiti women lied about Iraqi atrocities, because she left before the invasion. Yet her story was circulated widely, to justify the first Gulf War.

>But the funny thing is, the one dictator that's sitting on the world's second largest oil reserve is the one we picked to "liberate". Curiuos, isn't it?<

Its not curious at all.

I'm glad you admit that.

I never suggested that our government isn't corrupt.

So how do you know that the stories they tell you aren't designed to inflame your emotions into supporting an attack on the world's second largest oil reserves?

You know whats funny? When the government is trying to pass laws about companies accounting policies and such so that we dont have more Worldcom's and Enron's, when the government itself has all sorts of "cooking the books" problems.

I agree wholeheartedly. And even funnier is the idea that record deficits (even with the shady accounting) are supposed to be cured by reducing revenue.

Nothing is black & white. I don't love my gf JUST because of her amazing personality.

The nice body helps, I'm sure, right? And your desire to rip her jeans off and .... helps too. But on the other hand, I'm sure she's quite aware of you motives, and might have a few of her own (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). That ain't the same thing as starting a war for personal monetary gain and embelishing "facts" to sucker people along, is it? After all, in one case, you or she might get a broken heart (cured easily by a smile and wink from another girl, I can testify to that!), in the other case, people die.

We ALL have alterier motives/agendas. For the US, oil(money) is very likely one of them.

What's the price of oil? Does it compare to the price of a mother's tears?

Why do you suppose France and Russia are SO against this thing anyway? They have a lot of financial interests already tied up in Iraq, and us going there hurts their interests.

And if Saddam is such a terrible guy, and wants to screw everybody anyway possible, why is he trading with France and Russia in such a way that they would want to continue?

Oh well, the world is going to hate the US whether we DO or DON'T do anything about situations such as this, so why not also try to make something positive out of it for us too?

Don't be so falatistic. If the US was soley in the business of helping people (not governments), then perhaps the world might at least tolerate us. Waging war against a weak country isn't positive, and it's not going to help to world's wiew of us.

We do have plenty of untapped oil reserves in the US too.

Not nearly enough that's accessible for reasonable costs.

But as long as we can use theirs, we will have ours for a rainy day. This planning is very sound.

I agree, but on the condition that we pay for it, not take it by force.

(And yes I'm aware that a recent plan to drill into more of Alaska's oil was shot down by the wildlife people. Given an economic crisis, I think the result would be different).

"The wildlife people" must include 54 US Senators. At least they understood the long term value of unspoiled wilderness was worth more than 6 months of oil.

TDES

03-23-2003, 01:06 AM

George Bush - Used political connection and office to improve his personal wealth. Arguably made poor decisions regarding economic policy. Probably not the most environmentally concerned president we've seen.

Saddam - Tortured children in front of their parents for the purpose of instilling fear in his domain.

I'm sorry ... as I watch the news tonight knowing my sister and all the other soldiers are very much in harms way ... I'm able to discern the purpose. As respectful I've been to everyone’s opinion (and still am where it pertains to decent over war) ... I'm feeling the need to give a big F-Y to those that are not fully supporting our people that have the balls (ovaries) to get the job done.

As a country, we may not be loved for out policies, but I still maintain that we have done far more good for this planet than bad in our 200+ years. Show me a country that has done more for the world (despite our faults) and I'll conceed.

We've proven that there is nothing we cannot accomplish as a united country. USA is still the #1 place that people flock to in effort to seek a better life and a chance to prosper.

If we all don't remember what brought us the prosperity that we all enjoy and most of us take completely for granted, we'll end up as footnotes in the history books.

Descent and differing opinions are what made us unique, but not rallying behind our brothers and sisters in times of need, whether or not we agree with the cause will be our demise.

Futuro, if you don't like George, I support your opinion, but save the campaigning for 2004.

Right now, I'm much happier having Donnie and John making decisions than Madeline Half-bright and that broad that held a MP5 to Elian head..

BTW .... you enjoy these forums (and I enjoy your debates) .. where's your contribution ? <wink>

noticed this a while after I posted ......

Americans are inhumane (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030322/1/399ul.html)

Yeah ... we're the assholes .... where are your liberal crocodile tears about this .... huh ?

Borscht

03-23-2003, 03:34 AM

where's your contribution
Every word I post here is priceless, and contributes to the popularity of the board. Heh heh heh.

Should ShowEQ remain functional for a duration of greater than three months, or be repaired in a period of less than one week when it fails, I might actually contribute cash.

Reading that some have a functioning version, yet no update has been posted, doesn't inspire me to contribute my hard earned dollars.

Borscht

03-23-2003, 03:49 AM

Used political connection and office to improve his personal wealth. Arguably made poor decisions regarding economic policy. Probably not the most environmentally concerned president we've seen.
Be cautious not to accept the premises of liberals when you debate them. They are always flawed or empty rhetoric, for the foundation of liberalism is utopian fantasy and emotion...not reason and intellect.

I do not believe there has been any substantiated instance of Bush using political connections to improve his personal wealth. Considering the gutter-level criticism coming from Daschle, I imagine even the wildest speculation of any sort of dealing would be national news by now.

Bush's economic policy is no different than that of John F. Kennedy. Which was the very economic policy that Ronald Reagan adopted. I see no errors in Bush's economic policy, with the exception that it is being implemented much too slowly to have the effect that JFK's and Reagan's did.

Since virtually none of Bush's ten-year economic plan has actually kicked in yet, it's a bit premature to analyze the quality of his decisions.

Environmental "concern" has approached the level of radicalism. Banning sensible and necessary harvesting of national forests has led to the plague of recent wildfires with huge property losses to homes bordering the forestlands. Onerous restrictions on energy development have led to the rolling blackouts in California.

And I sincerely hope that once international terrorism is dealt with, we turn our attentions to our domestic terrorists operating under the guise of "environmental concern". Earth First, etc.

It seems innapropriate to me to apply liberal "standards" of how things should be done to a Conservative administration. Liberal "standards" are merely policy opinions. Bush applies the policy opinions of Conservatism as his standard, so one would not expect him to use Keynesian economics or radical zero-growth policies as regards the environment.

He should be judged on objective results, and it is much too early to measure those. His rejection of liberal hysteria on matters economic and environmental are to be expected.

The liberals lost, both in 2000 and again in 2002...devastatingly. Now that they have ludicrously positioned themselves so that the only way they can gain political advantage is if terrible things happen to the economy or in the Iraqi conflict, I suspect their demise will continue to accelerate.

It's time for them to get over it, and quit acting like their failed policies are some manner of objective standards.

Gnutter

03-23-2003, 11:18 AM

I sure wouldn't want to be a British soldier in Iraq right now. There's a very real chance of being killed by the Americans

Borscht

03-23-2003, 11:43 AM

There's a very real chance of being killed by the Americans
ROFLMAO! Yeah, those damn Americans. Wonderfully insightful and informative post.

We now return you to your normally scheduled anti-Americanism...

Gnutter

03-23-2003, 12:44 PM

LOL, don't get me wrong. I'm British, and I'm in favour of this war. I'm proud of the fact that British service men are standing shoulder to shoulder with the Americans.

It's just that even with all your high tech equipment, you still can't shoot for shit.

I mean, patriot missile against a RAF Tornado. Itchy trigger finger or what??? ( I know it's an automated system, before someone gets on their high horse )

Hell, if you can't laugh at it, what can you do.

Borscht

03-23-2003, 07:36 PM

I know it's an automated system, before someone gets on their high horse
I'm not laughing because your immediate assumption is that the fault lies with the American technology. Before any investigation has been completed, and the causes reckoned.

Anyone who suggests that Americans can't "shoot for shit" after the thousands of surgically precise strikes against Baghdad hasta be smoking some very low-quality hemp.

Especially considering the first strike of the war, in which missiles from several ships in different seas, along with bombs from stealth fighters, precisely struck their high-value target at the same instant.

My guess is the investigation will reveal a couple of pilots flying where they didn't belong, or with their FF transponders disabled, and paying the ultimate price for their error. As you admit, it's an automated system, with clearly understood parameters of operation.

Borscht

03-23-2003, 07:47 PM

"Conditions of a successful campaign", as defined by the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media:

- The war must end in a week, 10 days at the most.

- There must be no U.S. casualties.

- There must be no capture of coalition forces.

- There must be no deaths from friendly fire.

- There must be no deaths from accidents.

- No Iraqi civilians can be killed in the process.

- No Iraqi schools, mosques or hospitals can be damaged.

- Our troops must be welcomed by Iraqis waving American flags.

- We must find weapons of mass destruction.

- We must kill or capture Saddam Hussein and his sons.

- There can be no oil well fires or other environmental disasters.

- Defense spending cannot grow beyond the current 3.5% of GDP

I see a signpost up ahead. Next stop....the Twilight Zone

Cryonic

03-23-2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Borscht
"Conditions of a successful campaign", as defined by the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media:

- The war must end in a week, 10 days at the most.

Not likely to happen

- There must be no U.S. casualties.

too late for this one.

- There must be no capture of coalition forces.

Doh, another objective not completed

- There must be no deaths from friendly fire.

Gah, just can't seem to win this one.

- There must be no deaths from accidents.

This one was killed before the campaign even began.

- No Iraqi civilians can be killed in the process.

- No Iraqi schools, mosques or hospitals can be damaged.

- Our troops must be welcomed by Iraqis waving American flags.

- We must find weapons of mass destruction.

Hey, one we might have succeeded at

- We must kill or capture Saddam Hussein and his sons.

- There can be no oil well fires or other environmental disasters.

Gah....

- Defense spending cannot grow beyond the current 3.5% of GDP

I see a signpost up ahead. Next stop....the Twilight Zone

Very amusing.

Gnutter

03-24-2003, 01:26 AM

I knew someone would take my comments too seriously.

It was meant to be a very tongue in cheek statement. Accidents happen in war, and I agree, there have been many successfull surgical strikes.

There is a reputation of "friendly fire" scenarios here though. More brits were killed by friendly fire in the first gulf war, than were killed by Iraqis.

Geekylad

03-24-2003, 06:59 AM

PNAC is a think-tank founded in 1997 by the people who are now closest to
President Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and
so on. It's a pretty safe bet that what PNAC think is what George W. Bush
thinks. PNAC represents the thinking of the men now in power in the United
States.
Check this out....

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

and this.....

1984...

http://www.rense.com/general15/happy.htm

Cryonic

03-24-2003, 12:41 PM

I wasn't trying to take your post seriously, (hence the very amusing comment at the end of my post).

Alwayslost

03-24-2003, 02:16 PM

In regards to the patriot vs. Tornado incident:

The threat identification and targeting system is automatic, the firing mechanism is not. A living, breathing, and hopefully thinking, human being must push the launch button after the system has identified a potential threat.

The pilots have specific instructions on how to return to base if their ident responders are damaged or if their radios are out.

What I THINK happened was a malfunction of the Ident Responder that the pilot was unaware of. Thus he did not use the contingent approach patterns, as was thus targeted as an enemy missile or plane (general threat)

Or there is the possibility the Pilot was already injured and the Ident Responder and radio were both out and he took the default path to base due to medical condition/fatigue issues.

futuro

03-24-2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Borscht

Futuro, you have demonstrated the totality of your brand of utter vacuousness. You have ceased being amusing. You've dodged every shred of substance in my many posts directed at you, and chosen to jump off into some obscure area that I didn't even allude to.
All of your hasty replies are filled with the sophomoric silliness that is your trademark. Again you demonstrate how impervious to reason and truth that you are, and how you simply dance away from every objective fact.
As I've said before, I don't argue with fools and I don't throw pearls before swine. Welcome to that nice, quiet place where Jeeves lives! You have no power here, be off with you.

Your ad hominen attacks aside, I admit, until this message I did not view the video. I just assumed you were referring to the violence that broke out in SF. However, my comments still apply. You're using a video very selective in it's subject matter. All the people presented there were fringe, except for the last guy.

You're still painting with a broad brush by totally ignoring the vast majoirity of protestors who plainly don't think this war is necessary. Some people even are of the opinion that wrt preventing terrorism, it is counter-productive.

If you think that video is "objective fact", I'll show you some web pages from some religious nutcases and associate all religious people with them.... But you'd scream about that, wouldn't you?

Treat people as you would want to be treated. Don't lump me in with the nutcases, and I won't lump you in with the arab-haters who want to nuke the whole middle-east on your side of the war discussion, ok?

futuro

03-24-2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Borscht
I agree with your general precepts, however I would respectfully caution about accepting or conceding the premises of your opponent on these matters.

I read this as Borscht saying "don't give them any room to wiggle, even if they're right, we have a war to fight here, and we're not letting truth get in the way, everything has to be black vs. white, us vs. them, good vs. evil, otherwise, you'll confuse the masses and they might lose their resolve. Tell them anything, even insinuate that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, so their emotions get in the way of their rational thinking. Rational thinking is the real enemy".

Typical progagnda. De-humanize the opponent, call them "evil" and "enemy" and "anti-american".

Anyone who claims that America's goals in the Kuwait conflict, or the current Iraqi conflict, are oil money is demonstrating their complete ignorance of reality.

During the Kuwait conflict, oil prices dropped precipitously to a low of $17.00 a barrel for crude. Anyone invested in oil in those days took a major bath.

Crude prices are dropping like a rock even now, and began their drop in the hours just before the war. The economic forces that cause this are identical, and there will be many deflated stock portfolios as things continue. This is a boon to the oil consumer, but a total kick in the shorts for the oil distributor or investor.

I would submit that the writer here has a poor underatanding of economics. It's not the absolute price of the oil, but the relative price versus costs to extract and process. That's what is known as the "profit margin". Exxon could really care less what the price of oil is, as long as it covers their extraction, processing and delivery costs, plus a nice profit. Oil prices, like any commodity, are simply a reflection of supply and demand. The rise in crude prices reflected fears that some supply would be shut down (however temporarily) by the war. People started stocking up in anticipation of a bottle-neck in supply. It was generated by fear. Now that it seems the war will go relatively uneventfully, those fears were calmed, and the price will stabilize somewhat above where it was prior to the run up.

Any "investor" in crude who didn't have downside protection in the form of hedges and straddles, isn't an investor, they're a gambler. The major oil companies have their own supply, and buy oil on the market when it's economically feasible to do so. Exxon/Mobil has millions of gallons of pumping capacity at all levels of price. When the price goes up, they pump more of their "expensive" wells because then they can sell it at a profit. More supply come online, and demand being equal, the price starts to come down until their "expensive" wells aren't profitable anymore. Then they start buying on the open market again.

Either way, Exxon/Mobil makes money hand over fist. Anyone remember the "windfall profits tax" insituted on the oil companies during the 2 OPEC embargoes in the '70s?

And the speculators (gamblers) take a bath, so what?

We seek to preserve the Iraqi oil fields to conserve those resources for their rightful owners, the Iraqi people.

Is this the most naive statement you've ever heard in your life?

America has a long tradition of good stewardship and selfless sacrifice for the free world. We have asked for nothing from those countries we have saved or liberated, except enough ground to bury our dead. Only the pathetic leftists talk about "costs" where liberty is concerned.

No, I take it back.. This one is. I'm really wondering where you get your information. Granted, after WWII, we strived to rebuild Europe and the Pacific Rim, and (most) of those people are better for it. However, after Korea, we abandoned that practice, and have practiced a "enemy of my enemy" foreign policy that supported dictators as bad as Saddam (hell, including Saddam).

And we haven't asked Iraq for it's oil profits after the war. We just assumed the right to take them and dole them out to our "allies".

As a people, we are the most generous by any measure you care to devise. Do not let the aberational phenomena of the Clinton administration, or the current decrepit wantoness of the Democrat party lead you into believing that all our government is corrupt.

Here's a measure : Foreign aid as a percent of GDP : We're number 22 in the world. (source) (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp)

And, before I forget ---- "decripit wantoness of the Democratic party" ---- and you call me a partisan hack???

The nuances of difference between the opposing sides are not subtle, but rather easily discernable.

The one thing I almost agree with. Unfortunately for us normal Americans, the one thing both parties have in common is being owned by corporate interests.

futuro

03-24-2003, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by homer
If people would actually read all the resolutions that have been passed since 1991, they all give authorization in attacking Iraq if the points in it are not met. Time and time again Saddam has decieved, lied, and bullshitted his way out o fconflict. He even went as far to say he had no scud missles anymore.

Well, if that was true, where the hell are the scuds coming from now that he is firing?

The Resolutions, even teh most recent one passed last year, gives us the authority to do what we are doing. Why do you think the U.N. Sec General has not condemned or condoned what we are doing? All he has said is he hopes for a quick and decisive end to the conflict so humanitarian aid can be started.

If the resolutions had not authorized it, the U.N. would have already brougth charges against the U.S. and the other 39 countries of the coalition to the world court.

Please have your facts.

Fact : Given the current world military situation, the US cold concievably wipe every other nation form the face of the earth

Fact : The UN headquaters is in New York

Fact : The UN didn't authorization military action. The troops are not under UN command.

Fact : The US took this action on it's own (oh yeah, with 39 cojuoled, bribed or threatened "allies")

Fact : Without US troops, the UN is virtually powerless.

Fact : Bush withdrew from the world court. Do you think he had this in mind already? I sure do, since Wolfenstien, Rumsfeld, Chaney and others have been wanting this war for years.

So what would you have the UN do? They tried to stop us diplomatically, they tried to do this peacefully. Now all they can do is talk nice while the 900-pound gorrilla does what it wants to,anyway. 1441 called for "serious consequences". That's quite an open term, isn't it? During the time since this resolution, the US masses 300,000 troops on Iraq's border. Perhaps that's not what the Security Council meant by "serious consequences"? Bush and company *knew* this, that's why they tried for another resolution calling for military action. France, Germany, and Russia *disagreed* and wanted to give more time for inspections.

Noting that France, Germany, Russia, and all the countries combined couldn't stop us, what can the UN do?

But maybe I missed it, where is the resolution that specifically authorizes military action?

futuro

03-24-2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by TDES
George Bush - Used political connection and office to improve his personal wealth. Arguably made poor decisions regarding economic policy. Probably not the most environmentally concerned president we've seen.

You forgot : Attacked another country without provocation

Saddam - Tortured children in front of their parents for the purpose of instilling fear in his domain.

And we've supported dictators who've done the same or worse. As long as they were friendly to us, or our corporations.

I'm sorry ... as I watch the news tonight knowing my sister and all the other soldiers are very much in harms way ... I'm able to discern the purpose. As respectful I've been to everyone’s opinion (and still am where it pertains to decent over war) ... I'm feeling the need to give a big F-Y to those that are not fully supporting our people that have the balls (ovaries) to get the job done.

And I feel the need to give the give F-Y (I like that, not profanity, but everybody knows what it means :)) to all the ballless chicken hawks who want to put your sister in harms way for their personal profit. Check out the military records of the main people in Bush's administration, including Bush. (Powell excepted, of course). None of them have even been in the military, except for Dubya, who got a milk-run national guard assignment by way of his daddy's influence. If I were you, I'd be more mad at people who send kids to die while sitting counting their money. None of their kids or grandchildren are in Iraq, you can be damn sure.

As a country, we may not be loved for out policies, but I still maintain that we have done far more good for this planet than bad in our 200+ years. Show me a country that has done more for the world (despite our faults) and I'll conceed.

Sure, we've done some good. We've done pretty bad, too. Ask yourself why Iran picked the US embassary to take hostages in 1978(?). Then look at history and find that the US installed and supported the Shah of Iran for years, and gave him the weapons and money to keep his people suppressed for 30 years. We supplied weapons and training to Afghan rebels, then, when the USSR collapsed, instead of helping to rebuild the country and help the people, we abandoned them, giving rise to the Taliban. Perhaps our callous attitude toward Afghanistan was what changed OBL from a rich-kid rebel to an America hating terrorist.

We've proven that there is nothing we cannot accomplish as a united country. USA is still the #1 place that people flock to in effort to seek a better life and a chance to prosper.

I agree. And I want to keep it that way.

If we all don't remember what brought us the prosperity that we all enjoy and most of us take completely for granted, we'll end up as footnotes in the history books.

I firmly agree. And we're losing the economic egalitarianism that made us great.

Descent and differing opinions are what made us unique, but not rallying behind our brothers and sisters in times of need, whether or not we agree with the cause will be our demise.

Here I have to disagree. The true patriot stands behind his country when he thinks it is right, and rises up in protest when he thinks the country is wrong. In WWII, it was apparent to all that the US was on the right side. We stood as one and fought the threat. At the time, Germany was much stronger militarily then us, and I submit that, given some patience by Hitler, by not attacking the USSR and stopping Japan from attacking us, he could have eventually conquered the world, since even his research was way ahead of ours. But he was insane, lucky for us.

However, I don't need to tell you about Viet Nam, do I?

Futuro, if you don't like George, I support your opinion, but save the campaigning for 2004.

Please! The campaign on both sides started January 21st, 2001 :)
Meanwhile, if it wasn't for anti-war protestors during Viet Nam, we might still be ther fighting an endless war. As someone else posted the 1984 endless war might have started 2 decades earlier. Blindly following your government just because there's a war on is a ticket to oblivion.

Right now, I'm much happier having Donnie and John making decisions than Madeline Half-bright and that broad that held a MP5 to Elian head..

I'm glad at least you admit that Bush has no power. Isn't it great? We have a president that doesn't make the decisions, his "handlers" do.

BTW .... you enjoy these forums (and I enjoy your debates) .. where's your contribution ? <wink>[QUOTE]

I gave at the office :D

[QUOTE]noticed this a while after I posted ......

Americans are inhumane (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030322/1/399ul.html)

Yeah ... we're the assholes .... where are your liberal crocodile tears about this .... huh ? [/B]

No crocodile tears here. This is terrible. These poor kids are going to grow up unwanted and frightened. But just two points...

1) I don't hear Bush expanding his "Axis of Evil" to include China.
And anyway, it was Chinese Police that found this and stopped it. You have to give them credit for that.

2) I wouldn't be surprised if a few of those babies ended up here with American parents. There was a 20/20 expose on this exact thing a few years ago, and the babies were coming here illegally. (maybe it was 60 minutes, I forget). Instead of using the adoption system in the US, some wealthy Americans effectively buy asian babies. Meanwhile, many US babies grow up in serial foster care. I don't need to tell you why, do I?

hhh

03-24-2003, 09:26 PM

futuro, nice to have a refreshing debate w/o any resort to name-calling because opinions differ isn't it ? ;)

>It's funny that everybody here seems to think it fine for the US to have the weapons that we deem necessary for our defense, but other countries can't do the same.<

Following that logic, ok, maybe even we shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction. Then something like 9/11 happens to us anyway (and it would - Ill get to this further down). Shouldn't we retaliate? Or just take it and turn the other cheek?

Sometimes after thinking about this, I wonder if the world itself isn't very lucky that on 9/12, 90% of the middle east wasn't a radioactive mess.

>Being the most powerful nation in the world doesn't give us the right to dicate to the rest of the world how they should act. <

No, but with it, comes some indirect responsibilites and well, for lack of a better word, conditions.

As _THE_ superpower, you are going to be hated/envied no matter how nice you are, how much good things you do, or the nice things you do for society. Think about a local celebrity or something you know that is well off. If this person doesn't help or given back to the community, they are percieved as stuck up or too good for everyone. If this person does give back to the community, people think they are trying to buy themselves publicity to make oneself look good. Jealousy is something people are born one, and those that have not are going to be jealous, its natural. People will always envy/resent the United States no matter how much good/bad we do.

>Why do you think that other countries should take care of their less fortunate citizens when we don't? Why do you condemn Iraq and North Korea for spending money on their militaries at the expense of their poor, starving citizens when we're doing the exact same thing? <

I think plenty is spent on such in our own country. At just above 10% I think our poverty level is less than that of the compared countries. Couple with the fact that inflation isn't 60% here. Poverty should include the type of economy (ie unemployment, do a degree and such) that a government creates for its people, and I think they are slightly neglogent. Granted Bush is leaving a lot of room for improvement for economic policy.

You know, I hypothesized once that another reasont his war was "hurried" (well, thats an incorrect term, any idiot knows that if we were going to war it had to be before the hot weather hit in the desert) -- but another whole reason was to get servicemen out of the country, for an extended period of time -- since this would artifically make unemployment seem lower than it really is, compared to if those people were here and looking for day jobs too. History shows generally war is good for economy, but when people return afterwords usually equals a slump, due to the excess labor force. I had to discredit the hypothesis due to no hard evidence since I don't operate soley on conjecture. It just did seem to fit in kind of "neatly" though.

>So how do you know that the stories they tell you aren't designed to inflame your emotions into supporting an attack on the world's second largest oil reserves?<

Again, things aren't so black and white, and the media in this country isn't solely controlled by the government, so your going to hear it "all", not just stories that would seem to make you pro-war.

> And if Saddam is such a terrible guy, and wants to screw everybody anyway possible, why is he trading with France and Russia in such a way that they would want to continue? <

Ever heard of gangs? Bad guys band together? He needed an ace up the hole incase the US was going to come after him again? Afterall he tried many a time to draw Israel into the Gulf War, and we know what that would do that area. Man if Israel ever gets involved, even the US better stay out of their way. These people have fought since their existance, no one is a match for them.

Of all the things I've been reading lately, I really find the protests upsetting. The time for demonstations is over, that should have been done before the bombs started dropping. Now its time to line up behind your President and support him whether you approve of what hes doing or not. I have a ton of friends that are in Iraq now, and they know their mission is to bring a new Gov't to Iraq, and they are stoked about it. I remember in the Guilf War I was always worried about getting drafted and such. (I later found out I'm disqualified for any type of military service because of being blind in 1 eye). The opportunity to fight for your on country would be such an honor, even if you don't approve of what we are doing, it is your duty to your country. If not, Canada isn't far away because your disrepecting what this country was built on.

A minister of mine once said something along the lines of "a true friend is someone that knows everything about you, and is still your friend". That said, I'd like to publically say thanks for the UK, and Tony Blair, one of the most courageous men alive today for standing shoulder to shoulder with the US amist skeptism in his own country in the name of doing the right thing. We certainly know who one true friend is.

futuro

03-24-2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Borscht

Be cautious not to accept the premises of liberals when you debate them. They are always flawed or empty rhetoric, for the foundation of liberalism is utopian fantasy and emotion...not reason and intellect.[QUOTE]

Demonize your opponents, go ahead. Don't post substaniated facts and evidence, just call names and spew FUD.

[QUOTE]I do not believe there has been any substantiated instance of Bush using political connections to improve his personal wealth.

Then you're either a liar, or severely mis-informed. Just one example : Bush and the Rangers (http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/bush-sec5.html)
And another : Bush name helps oil dealings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush073099.htm)

Considering the gutter-level criticism coming from Daschle, I imagine even the wildest speculation of any sort of dealing would be national news by now.

No, the corporate press is quite happy with Bush. They spent their time in the last election trashing Gore for his internet quote. I'll bet you didn't read the link I supplied before about the RNC mangling Gore's quote to trash his reputation, and the "liberal" press running with it, as per orders. Bush's mangling of the english language, his drug and alcohol use, his driving record, his failed business dealings, all were off limits for GE, Disney, Viacom, Clear Channel and the two or three other corporations that control the US media.

Bush's economic policy is no different than that of John F. Kennedy.

An outright LIE. Kennedy reduced top income tax rates from 90% to 70%. Reagan reduced them from 65% to 33%!
Then Reagan raised FICA rate from 4%ish to the current 6.5%, a tax that people stop paying at (currently) $80,400. He moved the tax burden to the working man away from the rich, and gave us debt we're still paying today. Kennedy's budget was almost balaced, and he didn't burden future generations to pay for a war, or a military buildup. When Kennedy reduced tax rates, he also removed some tax havens, too. His tax cut was revenue neutral. Reagan's was designed to casue a deficit, to force the elimination of social programs that help the poor and middle class.

I now accuse you of being a shill for the neo-cons, who want to ruin the US for their own profit and wealth.

Which was the very economic policy that Ronald Reagan adopted.

Bullshit, plain and simple. Kennedy's tax cut was Keysian, pure and simple. Reagan's was supply-side. Supply-side is about the stupidest economic idea since sefdom.... wait, it's ultimate goal IS serfdom!

I see no errors in Bush's economic policy, with the exception that it is being implemented much too slowly to have the effect that JFK's and Reagan's did.[QUOTE]

Another load of Wooly Rhino shit. The only reason hat Reagan had any kin of economic expansion is that oil prices declined from $40 a barrel to $12 a barrel. Absent that, his cuts would have had no effect, and his deficits would have been much larger. I'd post some references, but I can see you're blinded by the supply-side idiots. Just remember, the guy who came up with this whole "economic policy" was names Laffer. A fitting name for a laughable economy.

[QUOTE]Since virtually none of Bush's ten-year economic plan has actually kicked in yet, it's a bit premature to analyze the quality of his decisions.

Wrong again. The middle class cuts are already in. And what happened? Deeper recession, higher deficts. What do you think giving more money to rich people who already have plenty of cash laying around in t-bills is going to do for the economy? For an example, Microsoft is sitting on $40 billion in cash, and Berkshire-Hathaway has $20 billion. What makes you think giving them more money will make them invest it?

We have more basic problems in this country that any size tax cut can solve. I ask the IS people here, how many of you have seen co-workers or friends jobs go to H-1B immigrants, or worse, outsourced to India, Indonesia, or Ireland for 1/2, 1/4 or 1/10 or American wages? And meanwhile, the glory of IS jobs is fading rapidly, and good programmers are saying "you want fries with that?"....

Environmental "concern" has approached the level of radicalism. Banning sensible and necessary harvesting of national forests has led to the plague of recent wildfires with huge property losses to homes bordering the forestlands. Onerous restrictions on energy development have led to the rolling blackouts in California.

Lying through his teeth for the corporations. I'm sory, but massive drought, and overdelopment lead to the plague of recent wildfires wiht losses to homes bodering national forests.

And it's been proven, with evidence and admisisons from those involved that the rolling blackouts in CA were casued by price manipulation by ENRON and other energy companies.

You should try to get Rush and Sean and their friends to update their rants.

And I sincerely hope that once international terrorism is dealt with, we turn our attentions to our domestic terrorists operating under the guise of "environmental concern". Earth First, etc.

Oh, yes! Those "terrorists" who want clean air, clean water, and some few square miles untouched by human development. Just another example of demonizing your opponents.

It seems innapropriate to me to apply liberal "standards" of how things should be done to a Conservative administration. Liberal "standards" are merely policy opinions. Bush applies the policy opinions of Conservatism as his standard, so one would not expect him to use Keynesian economics or radical zero-growth policies as regards the environment.

At least you're on the same page as Bush. He did say "There should be limits to freedom" and "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." That's the ticket, ramrod your views against all opposition, screw the concerns of people who disagree with you. As long as you get your way, everythings hunky-dory. Oh no, someone disagrees???
They're anti-american!

He should be judged on objective results, and it is much too early to measure those. His rejection of liberal hysteria on matters economic and environmental are to be expected.

His embracing of neo-con hysteria is to be fought tooth-and-nail. And less than a year to go before the 2004 campaign begins in earnest. His record is well documented and his goals are well known. He needs to go, even if you brainwashed-by-the-corporate-controlled-media types lie for him.

The liberals lost, both in 2000 and again in 2002...devastatingly.

I can't believe how you lie. Goebels would be impressed. Losing by getting more popular vote in 2000 is "devastatingly"? Losing a few seats in the Senate in 2002 is "devastatingly"?

Now that they have ludicrously positioned themselves so that the only way they can gain political advantage is if terrible things happen to the economy or in the Iraqi conflict, I suspect their demise will continue to accelerate.

Now this is funny. You mean more terrible things happen to the economy? It's not bad enough? You mean going to war against a country that posed no threat to us and was inspected, sanctioned, and embargoed for twelve years? I have news for you, even 8 REPUBLICAN Senators have had enough, they voted to DENY access to ANWAR for oil. What message more do you need that his policies are not popular? And don't point me to the polls showing 76% of American support the war. Americans are a good people, and don't want their sons and daughters to think they're not being supported in their jobs. I seem to recall that Daddy Bush enjoyed similar ratings during GW I, and after that was over, his ratings plumeted. Dubya will follof in his daddy's footsteps, and be a one-termer.

It's time for them to get over it, and quit acting like their failed policies are some manner of objective standards.

Why don't you give Rush Limbaugh credit for this screed? It seems to be taken word-for-word from several of his hysterical monologues. I'm worried that a seemingly intelligent perosn like you can be fooled into supporting policies that will cause you great harm in the long run.

But I blame the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that allowed companies to own multiple media outlets in single markets. You can't get real diversity of opinion, so you tend to believe the lies that Rush, Sean, Savage, and their type tell you.

futuro

03-24-2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Borscht
"Conditions of a successful campaign", as defined by the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media:

First, I'll ask if you have any cites for these.

No? Ok, I'll answer them one by one.

- The war must end in a week, 10 days at the most.

I don't see any media outlets saying this. They're quite content to garner the increased ratings that things like this give them. They're actually hoping that the war goes well into May, sweeps month, so they can show high ratings to their sponsers, and get higher ad revenue. Personally, I wish it didn't start.

- There must be no U.S. casualties.

If it didn't start, there wouldn't be any US causualties, would there? Who's saying this, other than the mothers and fathers or the troops, and concerned Americans?

- There must be no capture of coalition forces.

Cite? Oh yeah, I askes you for one before. But then again, if there was no war....

- There must be no deaths from friendly fire.

- There must be no deaths from accidents.

- No Iraqi civilians can be killed in the process.

- No Iraqi schools, mosques or hospitals can be damaged.

Funny, but people who are concerned about human life, and the US's reputation in the world are concerned about this stuff, too. And just maybe, if we didn't start this war....

- Our troops must be welcomed by Iraqis waving American flags.

Wow, this sounds like somethins Bush Inc. would want too. After all, they're the ones who claim this is to "liberate" Iraq.

- We must find weapons of mass destruction.

I would think Bush would want this, too. After all, if we don't find any, isn't one of the main reasons gone? Doens't the "war for oil" stance gain much strength? At the very least, it makes our intelligende community look... unintelligent?

- We must kill or capture Saddam Hussein and his sons.

Rumsfeld said yeterday that if Saddam dies, the war is over. Sounds like that's what he wants, doesn't it?

- There can be no oil well fires or other environmental disasters.

I'm starting to believe that you're spoofing a neo-con. This is just too funny. So I guess that Chaney want oil well fires?

Oh, wait! He does! He gets cash to clean them up! I forgot... Haliburton already has a contract.

- Defense spending cannot grow beyond the current 3.5% of GDP

Too late for that, isn't it? Can defense spending grow beyond 50% of the world total? Is that ok?

I see a signpost up ahead. Next stop....the Twilight Zone

Obviously, that's where you are.

futuro

03-25-2003, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by hhh
[B]futuro, nice to have a refreshing debate w/o any resort to name-calling because opinions differ isn't it ? ;)

It's too rare lately, that's for sure. Thanks for that! :)

>It's funny that everybody here seems to think it fine for the US to have the weapons that we deem necessary for our defense, but other countries can't do the same.<

Following that logic, ok, maybe even we shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction. Then something like 9/11 happens to us anyway (and it would - Ill get to this further down). Shouldn't we retaliate? Or just take it and turn the other cheek?

Not at all. We are a nation of laws. A criminal organisation committed that tragic act. We should hunt down and arrest those responsible for planning it. They should be put on public trial, and evidence should be presented and hopefully they should be convicted and put away for a long time. Personally, I'm against the death penalty, and in any case, putting those people to death just creates martyrs that others can use as inspiration.

Sometimes after thinking about this, I wonder if the world itself isn't very lucky that on 9/12, 90% of the middle east wasn't a radioactive mess.

You know, I live in NJ. I used to work downtown. I personally knew about 7 people who died, and with "friends of friends", it would have to be over 40 people. I could see the smoke from my front door. I was pissed. The thought did cross my mind, and with the credible evidence that the Taliban was basically a front for Al Quada, I was all for the Afghanistan action. Than I read some stuff about how Unocal had been trying to get a pipeline across Afghanistan for several years, but the Taliban kept raising the stakes, and they finally bailed. And I read credible evidence that the Bush administration resumed talks about the pipeline in the summer of '01. Then I read about he FBI agent in Arizona (I forget his name, can look it up if you want) that was warning about Saudi immigrants acting strangely at a flight school, and other cases like this in Minessota and Florida. The agent in Arizona got so disgusted that he resigned and took the job of director of security at the WORLD TRADE CENTER!, and died in the attack. I read about Mary Jo White, the federal prosecutor for Manhattan being told to drop an investigation of the Bin Laben family and subsequently resigning. Hmm....

Now I'm not into conspiracy theories in general, but sometimes there are conspiracies. I'm not saying that Bush knew, but I'm not saying he didn't. The secrecy of the current administration troubles me also. The whole "enegy policy" conferences, that Chaney refuses to release, meetings attend by Ken Lay, and other energy company CEO's, the decision by Bush to not release Reagan's papers, even though the law states that after 12 years, a presidents papers must be released, and some other things make me wonder what they are hiding.

My wife wouldn't listen to some of the real facts I told her, because she couldn't believe that people would allow people to die simply for money. Since this war started, she's listening. She told me yesterday, that she can't believe that Bush would send US troops to die and kill Iraqi's for oil money. I said, oh, you still don't think it's true.... she said, no I just can't believe that people would do that. I don't know anyone like that and hope I never do. At my urging, she read some history, and now knows that people send people to die for money. She's disgusted.

>Being the most powerful nation in the world doesn't give us the right to dicate to the rest of the world how they should act. <

No, but with it, comes some indirect responsibilites and well, for lack of a better word, conditions.

I wonder why you think that. If you're the biggest guy on the block, is it you're responsibility to intervene in every dispute that happens on your block? Do you go and shoot the guy with the gun just because he might shoot his next door neighbor? Do you beat up the father who doesn't give his kids enough to eat, because he wants to spend the money on bulletproof walls becasue he's afraid of you?

Even the nutcase on the block who once broke into the neighbors house, but has been on probation for 12 years, and hasn't done a thing, do you beat him up because he might do something to you? Part of freedom is accepting risk that someone else will abuse their freedom. People or countries are free to act unless they infringe on other people's or country's rights.

I'm just of the opinion that going the high road and treating the rest of the world like we are supposed to treat American citizens will go a long way to show the world that freedom is the wat to go. Acting like the local bully just makes for resentment and anger.

As _THE_ superpower, you are going to be hated/envied no matter how nice you are, how much good things you do, or the nice things you do for society.

No, I disagree. I'll expand on that below....

Think about a local celebrity or something you know that is well off. If this person doesn't help or given back to the community, they are percieved as stuck up or too good for everyone. If this person does give back to the community, people think they are trying to buy themselves publicity to make oneself look good. Jealousy is something people are born one, and those that have not are going to be jealous, its natural. People will always envy/resent the United States no matter how much good/bad we do.

I currently live between Freehold and Asbury Park, New Jersey. This is Bruce Springsteen country, man. He's the local hero, that's for sure. He gives back, and he's perceived as a local hero, and always willing to help those in need. Asbury Park has been in a decline for years, and he's been working hard to restore it's old glory. There's not a soul around here that says a bad word about Bruce. Every restaurant has a picture of him, even the three local pizza places. He's been there. He supports the community, and even though he lives in several ritzy places around the country, he always comes back to help. That's one example.

For a contrasting example from my youth on Long Island, we had an enclave of ritzy houses with some wealthy people near where I lived. My father had a dry cleaners that serviced that area. Two families come to mind. One was the owners of 6 department stores all over Long Island called Seaman's. Well, Mr. and Mrs. Seaman lived in that ritzy area. One day, while hitchhiking home, Mrs. Seaman stopped and gave me a ride. She said "You're Joe the Cleaner's son, aren't you? I've seen you there" ... She went out of her way to take me right to my house. She was wonderful, chatty, and kind. She and her husband were known in our middle class area as great people, always donating to the volunteer fire department, the American Legion, and other organizations.

The other "person" was Alan Jay Lerner. If you're into musicals, you might know "Lerner and Lowe", who wrote "Brigadoon" and a couple of other big Broadway shows that were made into movies. Well, here was a nasty bastard... My friend's mother worked for him as a housekeeper. One day, my friend and a few of us were having a picinc on his property (part of about 50 acres). There was 4 of us, and my friend had to be there, since his father was working. He had permission to be there, and we were just hanging, bothering nobody on a piece of land that wasn't used for anything. He noticed us, and sent the BUTLER to tell us to leave. The next day, he fired my friend's mother. Needless to say, he wasn't looked upon as a nice person in the community. He never supported any local organizations, and made my father wait 6 months to get paid, routinely!

Now who do you think would get his house egged on Halloween?

Bottom line is, you reap what you sow.

>Why do you think that other countries should take care of their less fortunate citizens when we don't? Why do you condemn Iraq and North Korea for spending money on their militaries at the expense of their poor, starving citizens when we're doing the exact same thing? <

I think plenty is spent on such in our own country. At just above 10% I think our poverty level is less than that of the compared countries. Couple with the fact that inflation isn't 60% here. Poverty should include the type of economy (ie unemployment, do a degree and such) that a government creates for its people, and I think they are slightly neglogent. Granted Bush is leaving a lot of room for improvement for economic policy.

Well, you might think so, but the ultimate goal of the neo-cons is to strip the federal government of the ability to help people educate themselves and remove any safety blanket. They want all the money for themselves.

You know, I hypothesized once that another reasont his war was "hurried" (well, thats an incorrect term, any idiot knows that if we were going to war it had to be before the hot weather hit in the desert) -- but another whole reason was to get servicemen out of the country, for an extended period of time -- since this would artifically make unemployment seem lower than it really is, compared to if those people were here and looking for day jobs too. History shows generally war is good for economy, but when people return afterwords usually equals a slump, due to the excess labor force. I had to discredit the hypothesis due to no hard evidence since I don't operate soley on conjecture. It just did seem to fit in kind of "neatly" though.

If the shoe fits :) Perhaps that's not the main reason, but it sure doesn't hurt, does it?

>So how do you know that the stories they tell you aren't designed to inflame your emotions into supporting an attack on the world's second largest oil reserves?<

Again, things aren't so black and white, and the media in this country isn't solely controlled by the government, so your going to hear it "all", not just stories that would seem to make you pro-war.

No, the media isn't controlled by the government. It's controlled by corporations. And who do you think controls the government?

> And if Saddam is such a terrible guy, and wants to screw everybody anyway possible, why is he trading with France and Russia in such a way that they would want to continue? <

Ever heard of gangs? Bad guys band together? He needed an ace up the hole incase the US was going to come after him again? Afterall he tried many a time to draw Israel into the Gulf War, and we know what that would do that area. Man if Israel ever gets involved, even the US better stay out of their way. These people have fought since their existance, no one is a match for them.

Watch what you're saying. Bad guys banding together, huh? Does that apply to Reagan and his support for Saddam, and looking the other way when Saddam used chemical waepons against Kurds and Iranians? I'm failing to recall any outcry in the 80's when Saddam was actually using chemical weapons. And yes, it's true that we only get about 3% of our oil from Iraq, but did you know that 40% of Iraq's oil goes to us? Hmm....

Of all the things I've been reading lately, I really find the protests upsetting. The time for demonstations is over, that should have been done before the bombs started dropping.

It was....

Now its time to line up behind your President and support him whether you approve of what hes doing or not.

No, absolutely not! That's a sure road to dictatorship. All Bush has to do is keep invading countries that offend him. Are you going to support the invasion of Iran? Syria? Jordan? Saudi Arabia? I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler, he's not the same, but what you're espousing is exactly what the German citizens did when Hitler invaded Austira, Checkoslovakia. Poland .... I'll paraphase and old quote "They came for the jews, I didn't speak up, cause I'mnot a jew... they came for the gypsys, I didn't speak up becasue I'm not a gypsy.... when they came for me, there was noone left to speak up."

I have a ton of friends that are in Iraq now, and they know their mission is to bring a new Gov't to Iraq, and they are stoked about it. I remember in the Guilf War I was always worried about getting drafted and such. (I later found out I'm disqualified for any type of military service because of being blind in 1 eye). The opportunity to fight for your on country would be such an honor, even if you don't approve of what we are doing, it is your duty to your country. If not, Canada isn't far away because your disrepecting what this country was built on.

I hope all your friends come back healthy, and soon (today, if possible). But fighting for your country implies that there is a fight. As far as I know, Iraq has made a few empty threats, but hasn't attacked us. We have attacked them. Let me tell you something. I'm not to enamored about Bush, but if some country, or group of countries came here, right or wrong, to invade my space, I'd fight them to the death. Even if it was Bush's fault. Even if Bush was wrong. This is my home, and you don't come here and tell me what to do. If Bush is bad, I'll get rid of him, not you. I'll bet there's thousands of Iraqis that feel the same way.

And FYI, this country wasn't built on invading another country just becasue thet might someday have the remote cance of attacking us. It was built on freedom, and respecting other rights. We're losing that today.

A minister of mine once said something along the lines of "a true friend is someone that knows everything about you, and is still your friend". That said, I'd like to publically say thanks for the UK, and Tony Blair, one of the most courageous men alive today for standing shoulder to shoulder with the US amist skeptism in his own country in the name of doing the right thing. We certainly know who one true friend is.

I disagree. A true friend is someone who'll tell you that you're acting like an idiot, and still like you. Tony Blair is acting like a syncophant, just yessing along with Bush. He's like a Smithers yessing along with Mr. Burns. But even Smithers objected when Mr. Burns wanted to block the sun from shining on Springfield.

(Simpsons reference free of charge) :)

futuro

03-25-2003, 12:55 AM

It seems I used most of my EQ time responding to posts...

Going to continue that stupid coldain shawl quest, halfway thorugh the third one now... gotta get that baking skill up!

hhh

03-25-2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by futuro
It seems I used most of my EQ time responding to posts...

Going to continue that stupid coldain shawl quest, halfway thorugh the third one now... gotta get that baking skill up!

Only got a few minutes since I'm waiting for the market to open :)

But I quit eq finally a few weeks ago and cancelled my 6 accounts. Having a working showeq 2 weeks out of 3 months didn't allow it to be fun enough anymore. Now, I don't care, lol, its great ;)

Alwayslost

03-25-2003, 09:59 AM

BoardAdmin,

Can we please change the title of this thread to "Fun Stories with Futuro the Clown"?

homer

03-25-2003, 02:29 PM

France, Germany, and Russia *disagreed* and wanted to give more time for inspections.

We have had 10 years of inspections. 10 years of them lying. 10 years of them hiding. When inspectors would show up unannounced at a place, they were denied entry. One of those places was that factory that we took over. Gee...

And France and Russia didn't want us to because of what they were selling Iraq, GPS Scramblers, Night vision goggles, weapons, etc. Well.. weren't all those things banned by the sanctions? Let me look... Oh, Yup. They were...

They didn't want us finding that stuff. It was shipped to Iraq IN humanitarian supply shipments.

Borscht

03-25-2003, 04:43 PM

Yup. The peaceniks shout "No war for oil!", the French shout "No war, for oil!"

Those countries that threatened veto are *all* in bed with Saddam. France has sweetheart oil-deals in exchange for light-water reactor technology and parts used in enriching plutonium. Germany too.

Russia is now revealed as having sold those GPS scramblers, night vision goggles, etc.

All those suggesting continuing sanctions/inspections are those who have been violating the sanctions all along. Arming Iraq right up to the present.

But all of the former Eastern Bloc nations have been behind us since the beginning. They know what a tyrant looks like, and they appreciate the unique role America plays as the liberator and protector of liberty in the free world.

Bush's diplomacy has been stunningly brilliant. As he said in his address post-911, we're about to find out who our friends really are.

Scratch France, Germany, Canada and Russia off that list. Turkey is now suspect. The UN revealed to even the most skeptical as an irrelevant group of appeasers, dedicated to the obstruction of American efforts in every arena. NATO a limp and useless vestige of the past.

The stage is now set for moving forward. There is no political gain in supporting the UN or NATO any longer. Very little to lose in withdrawing our forces from Germany.

And America may now act in her own interests, without having to kowtow to a bunch of tin-horn dictators who seek to do us in.

On the homefront, the Democrat party has done itself in. The elites of academia and the caviar socialists of Hollywood the same. There is no respectability or power left in being a protestor of war. The 60's Woodstock crap is deflated and revealed as mere mindless reactionism.

The supposed "idiot cowboy" has played both our international and our domestic enemies like a Stradivarius. We can expect at least an entire generation relatively free of their meddling.

Absolutely brilliant, stunningly so. Reaganesque.

Chyran

03-25-2003, 10:54 PM

I didn't read all this now. Just to tell some of the still reading persons what somebody from Germany thinks about this.

I have to say that I can't understand why a person that didn't even win an election can rule a country, and have as much might as he wants. He practically can do anything now. Do you know that the CIA will know about every book you buy? That, when you want to fly, your credit card history and bank account will be checked to determine if you are good enough to fly?

Also, and this is my personal view, I think that this war is all about oil. It has nothing to do with any terrorists (Saddam would be really stupid if he'd had contacts to terrorists - and he showed us that he is definitely _not_ stupid) or with that 'Saddam is a bad guy' thing. Sure he is, but Bush doesn't care about much worse guys. Hell, the US did even give him his might in the first place (as they gave to the Afghanistan regime too, when Russia fought them). Also, it's not at all about chemical, biological or *laugh* nuclear weapons. The whole world had to laugh as we were shown the 'proves' of these weapons by Rumsfeld. Northern Corea has more dangerous weapons than the Irak, why doesn't Bush attack North Corea? Because the weapons don't matter here.

Bush said (I think today) that the war will cost something along the lines of 75.000.000.000 US $ (if I remember it right). It already costed(sp?) a reasonable amount of soldiers their lives, and it will cost a much larger number of them theirs too. How can it be worth this? Why does the money not go to people in the US who really need it? As far as I know, poverty is not an unknown think in the United States.

Do you know how many international treaties the US just ignore to fight this war? This war has not been approved by the UN. The reasons for this war were all jokes. The 'proves' that were shows were to make the American people approve that war. We here ask us, what gives the US the right? This is clearly an aggressive act, a war for oil and/or money, and how could it possibly justified? Who can now prevent the US from doing just what they want, when they don't care at all about what other nations do and think?

There were pictures in our TV that the US TV stations didn't send. Pictures of wounded and captured American soldiers. They were questioned and shown in the Iraqi TV to strenghten the will if the Iraqi fighters. Of course these pictures don't appear in the US TV. Nobody would like them. But there are pictures in the US TV showing how great the war goes, to blind the masses and enable the administration to do whatever it likes. There is alway a certain form of censorship in the media, but what I have heard from the US exceeds anything I have ever feared. Do you even hear about all the people that went out onto the streets to demonstrate against that war? There were hundreds of thousands (!!!!!) in Germany, hundreds of thousands in France, in Spain, and even in Great Britain. For example, it is spoken of 10.000.000 people who demonstrated against this war on February 15/16 all over the world. 300.000 people were on the streets in London. Can you even imagine this number? 2/3 of Great Britain people are against this war, and Blair has already lost some of the people he governed with. Nobody knows what devil rides him to participate actively in this war, and the common attitude is that it will cost him at least the next elections. And then there are mass demonstrations in the US itself! Is this shown in the American TV? I doubt it.

We people here in Europe (and a reasonable part of the goverments too) are really pissed off by the way the US government spits in the faces of the other countries that believe in Freedom and Democracy, but don't approve this war. I think that, if the US government continues to ignore other countries like this in decision as important as this, it will definitely not have a good end.

Jesus, even the Pope said that he disapproves this war. How can Bush still say "God bless America"?

Do you even know where the Iraq is? Could you find Germany or France on a world map? Consider yourself well educated if you can, a huge amount of Americans can't.

If I think about all the wars that were started by the USA, with reasons as great as a ship blown up by (this was later discovered) the CIA, the politicians assassinated by the CIA, the upraisings supported or suppressed by American troops and agents, and all the other things nobody knows about yet I become sick.

Read this:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
And if you got much time, read some of this:
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy.html

Chyran,
In deep admiration of those who try to open the eyes of all others, and deep sorrow of all the ruined destinies of everybody who was affected by War, Terrorism and political games.

(Do not look at this picture if you have a weak stomach: http://www.redglobe.info/logos/aktuell/krieg/kind-basra.jpg)

futuro

03-26-2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Chyran
I didn't read all this now. Just to tell some of the still reading persons what somebody from Germany thinks about this.

Some of us Americans are always willing to hear opinions from our compatriots around the world. Other American might not listen, though. Others might deride you and call you names for your views. They're the people I'll talk about below.

I have to say that I can't understand why a person that didn't even win an election can rule a country,

Unlike other countries, the US has a system called the Electoral College. When we "vote for president", what we are actually doing is voting for a slate of electors pledged to that particular candidate. These electors are elected or a state by state basis, with smaller population states having a larger proportionate representation. For example, California has ~20 million people, and gets 54 electors. This is based on California's 52 representatives in the House of Reprentatives and it's 2 Senators.
Quick math yields about 370,000 people per elector. On the other extreme, Delaware has 3 electors, based on their 1 representative and 2 Senators. Delaware's population is ~800,000 people, yielding about 270,000 people per elector. What this means is that people in smaller state actually have a vote that is worth more than people in larger states. Bush was stong in these smaller states, while Gore was very strong in the larger states. Bush won a vast majority of the smaller states by small majorities, while Gore won the larger states by larger majorities. The electors are a winner-take-all proposition. When a candidate wins a state, he gets all it's electors, even if he wins by one vote.

Strange system, isn't it? See this link (http://www.multied.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html) for an explanation of why it was created.

No matter my personal opinion of the Electoral College, I know it does protect smaller states from domination from larger states. Plus, as the link says, it would take 2/3 of the states to ratify a change, making it hardly likely that it would ever happen.

It's in the Constitution, and I accept it. It the rules we play by.

and have as much might as he wants. He practically can do anything now.

Here we have a problem. It's called "the Imperial Presidency". According to the Constitution, only Congress can decalre war. Over the last 50 years, US presidents have cajouled Congress into authorizing excursions into other countries by US troops without a formal declaration of war. The Courts haves dropped the ball big time on this subject. They've refused to even hear cases that challenged the President's actions in sending troops overseas wihtout a declaration on war. The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. This kind of thing is exactly the situation that they were trying to avoid. The president today has the power of a king when it comes military action. From the very pens of the founding fathers come this

“The President will only occasionally command the militia, only after the Congress has called it into the actual service of the nation by legislative provision.” ~Federalist #69.

Unfortunately, there are many people in this country all to eager for warfare. They support this president's war because their lives are empty of excitement and they want some without risking their own skin.

Do you know that the CIA will know about every book you buy? That, when you want to fly, your credit card history and bank account will be checked to determine if you are good enough to fly?

Americans have gotten very lazy about protecting their rights. They want "security" and "safety" and they forget that those things come at the price of their liberty. They talk about freedom of speech, but when someone speaks something they don't like, they call them "clowns" (as demonstrated quite recently right on this board). Even our president was quoted as saying "There should be limits to freedom". It's scary.

Also, and this is my personal view, I think that this war is all about oil. It has nothing to do with any terrorists (Saddam would be really stupid if he'd had contacts to terrorists - and he showed us that he is definitely _not_ stupid) or with that 'Saddam is a bad guy' thing. Sure he is, but Bush doesn't care about much worse guys. Hell, the US did even give him his might in the first place (as they gave to the Afghanistan regime too, when Russia fought them). Also, it's not at all about chemical, biological or *laugh* nuclear weapons. The whole world had to laugh as we were shown the 'proves' of these weapons by Rumsfeld. Northern Corea has more dangerous weapons than the Irak, why doesn't Bush attack North Corea? Because the weapons don't matter here.

Why do you have to go out of the US to find clear thinking people?
Thank you for saying this, some here should realize that no matter what they think, other's opinions of their actions actually matter.

Bush said (I think today) that the war will cost something along the lines of 75.000.000.000 US $ (if I remember it right). It already costed(sp?) a reasonable amount of soldiers their lives, and it will cost a much larger number of them theirs too. How can it be worth this? Why does the money not go to people in the US who really need it? As far as I know, poverty is not an unknown think in the United States.

No, it's not. I choke when I hear Rumsfeld say that Saddam is starving his people to build WMD's. I would like to invite Rumsfeld to some inner cities or rural areas of the US, and show him just who's starving their own people to build WMD's. We spend as much as the entire world combined on weapons, yet we still have a poverty rate of more than 10%. Who are we to talk?

Do you know how many international treaties the US just ignore to fight this war? This war has not been approved by the UN. The reasons for this war were all jokes. The 'proves' that were shows were to make the American people approve that war. We here ask us, what gives the US the right? This is clearly an aggressive act, a war for oil and/or money, and how could it possibly justified? Who can now prevent the US from doing just what they want, when they don't care at all about what other nations do and think?

This is where we come to the real problem. There is a substanial population in the US that is still living in the "Old West". We're a very young country, compared to most of the rest of the world. Our recent history includes exterminating the native population of our "homeland" (geez, how I hate that term). We have a very short cultural history when compared to Europe, or the rest of the world. Here in America, a building 200 years old is considered "historical". In Europe, that's new contruction. I'd bet that you can find several buildings near your home that are 500 years old or more. We have nothing like that here. You can probably trace your ancestory back to 1000CE. A fantastically long family history in America is the Mayflower Families. That's 1620. Less than 400 years. You Europeans can find dozens of examples in your own histories of ultimately failed "cowboy excursions" like the one we're engaged in now. We hardly have scrachted the surface of conquest. We don't know that it ends up screwing you in the end. Britan wnet through it, Germany did, France did, Russia did, Spain did. We're youngun's and still learning.

Also, I might point out that US citizens in general are quite suseptible to fantasy. We're the world capital of "creationism" something that you probably don't have mush experience with. I'd bet you'd be surpised that almost 1/2 of the US population thinks that some mysterious sky daddy created the world 6,000 years ago, and "destroyed" it with a flood. Yes, really, they think that's true!.... Amazing, isn't it? We're still a superstitious lot, and that's the ones that voted for Bush, and they the ones concentrated in those small states that have a larger vote for president per person than the big states like NY and CA. They tend to believe their preacher and believe their presidnet when he "prays" for things and "asks god for guidance".

They're suckers.

There were pictures in our TV that the US TV stations didn't send. Pictures of wounded and captured American soldiers. They were questioned and shown in the Iraqi TV to strenghten the will if the Iraqi fighters. Of course these pictures don't appear in the US TV. Nobody would like them. But there are pictures in the US TV showing how great the war goes, to blind the masses and enable the administration to do whatever it likes. There is alway a certain form of censorship in the media, but what I have heard from the US exceeds anything I have ever feared. Do you even hear about all the people that went out onto the streets to demonstrate against that war? There were hundreds of thousands (!!!!!) in Germany, hundreds of thousands in France, in Spain, and even in Great Britain. For example, it is spoken of 10.000.000 people who demonstrated against this war on February 15/16 all over the world. 300.000 people were on the streets in London. Can you even imagine this number? 2/3 of Great Britain people are against this war, and Blair has already lost some of the people he governed with. Nobody knows what devil rides him to participate actively in this war, and the common attitude is that it will cost him at least the next elections. And then there are mass demonstrations in the US itself! Is this shown in the American TV? I doubt it.

The US media refused to show the POW tapes. They did show the peace demonstrations, but most of the media outlets had their "commentators" deride the demonstators. The US media is in the hands of major corporations, and they show what those corporations want them to show.

We people here in Europe (and a reasonable part of the goverments too) are really pissed off by the way the US government spits in the faces of the other countries that believe in Freedom and Democracy, but don't approve this war. I think that, if the US government continues to ignore other countries like this in decision as important as this, it will definitely not have a good end.

I fear you are correct.

Jesus, even the Pope said that he disapproves this war. How can Bush still say "God bless America"?

Most of the US is Protestant. They don't care about the pope. And there is even a sizable minority than considers the pope a blasphemer and close to the anti-christ. Bush is definately a protestant.

Do you even know where the Iraq is? Could you find Germany or France on a world map? Consider yourself well educated if you can, a huge amount of Americans can't.

I can. But you are correct, many Americans can't. They don't care. All they want is US POWER!!! All they want is to think their country is NUMBER ONE. They like that.

If I think about all the wars that were started by the USA, with reasons as great as a ship blown up by (this was later discovered) the CIA, the politicians assassinated by the CIA, the upraisings supported or suppressed by American troops and agents, and all the other things nobody knows about yet I become sick.

Oh, they don't believe this stuff.

Read this:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
And if you got much time, read some of this:
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy.html

I'm familiar with this stuff, and sickened by it. But many in the US think it's lies. Or they don't care, because whatever America does is fine with them.