Why couldn't we get U.N. approval or a broader coalition?

[DrewKaree]

They (France and Russia) weren't just making money on the arms for food deals, they owned substantial amounts of property there and Saddam owed them loads of money. Indeed they didn't like the idea that Bush would go in, bomb their property to hell and steal the oil for himself.

Funny you should make such a slip there, patrick.  It wasn't an "ARMS for food" deal, although that IS what Sadaam turned it into!  It was an "oil for food" deal.  Well, that helps me to at least see that you DO understand that Sadaam was using the program to obtain arms...AND weapons!...now it just leaves me wondering how you read about the program and view it as nothing to be concerned about.

I think it goes a bit far to state these nations are violating sanctions. They are however looking out for their own interests yes. They had invested lots of money when there were no sanctions on these investments. The proceeds of these oil for food scams are not even remotely interesting to nations states. Of course there will be individuals making money off these deals, but you are not gonna find a link to a nation state as such.

Again, funny you should say it goes a bit too far...*LINK*  Here's a guy who said just that in his report...although he doesn't say France, he switches Syria with them..."Russia and Syria defied UN sanctions and supplied weapons and platforms"*LINK*

Now, you may play your game of "it's too far, he only said "defied", that's not the same".  I refer you to "SUPPLIED WEAPONS AND PLATFORMS".  

No link, you say, hey?  

Yep, seems the only way to debate on this forum is with cheap shots

yeah, really...patrick called me an uninformed yank....can you give him a time out and have him stand in the corner or something...my feelings were hurt

Anyhoo, Dartful, it WAS oil I was referring to, as in the only ministry and part of the infrastructure protected by the invaders while the others were levelled. Coincidence?

now, me being a simple American dunce and all...lemme see if'n I kin figger dat wun out der Dex.  

Gulf War I - as Sadaam flees, he sets fire to the oil fields.  The oil fields take 3-4 days to put out -each.  That takes troops to deal with, AND helps to contribute to global warming, along with 70 bazillion cows.  We decide to protect them from being set ablaze, which helps leave one less thing to worry about.  You're right Dex, what an evil coincidence.  OH, perhaps you missed our true intentions.  We wanted the oil to be safe for France, Russia (and add Syria now)  & China to steal from Iraq, so in reality, we were only looking out for Mr Kerry's allies.  I know military strategy probably eludes you, but don't worry, that's why Americans are entrusted with that job.  

And while we're talking facts, the reasons given for attacking Iraq were never regieme change, until now of course, because there would never have been a 'coalition' if regieme change in a soverign nation was the reason for going to war.

I'm still waiting for you to give us the link to President Bush's words where he gives to the American public and the world at large the reasons we will go to war.  I'm looking for HIS words, not the lies you continue to spew out, but the words that Bush gave as to why we would be going to war.

Usually when someone here has claimed something to be "FACT", as you are wont to do, they back it up with SOMETHING, perhaps you feel you needn't be troubled with backing up your stories?  You should have no trouble, what with your "non-partisan media" over there

[patrickl]

If you look back in history you'll see a path of destruction and intrigue brought on by the government of the USA. Apparently that's the way they do business and they don't ever seem to learn from their past mistakes. I would appreciate it if they finally came out and said "ok we ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up, but we will leave other countries alone from now". But noooo they just blame someone else, come up with some lame propaganda story containing essential items like "freedom", "god bless us", "must defend our interests" and the dumb masses swallow it whole like it's the holy truth coming from the bible itself.

Yep, the US really screwed things up during world war 2.  We should have just minded our own business and left Europe to sort out its own problems.

Geez, Patrick, when you make blanket statements like that, how can you expect people to NOT see your obvious bias?

OK, we screwed up in Europe during WW2, so we'll leave other countries alone from now on.  We sure learned our lesson!

So you name one counter example and that disproves that the rest of the path of destcruction did not take place?

Might I even add that even the WWII could have indeed be handled a lot better? The Cold war that lasted for about 50 years after that kind of resulted from that.

What's my obvious bias? I respond to people stating the US is great and makes no mistakes, the Iraq invasion is a godsgift, it will bring an end to all terror even before it started and that the whole world is conspiring against the US while only the US of course knows best whats good for the world. I see such ridiculous nonsense here that you cannot find it strange that people (like me) try to offer some balancing facts. I understand I'm wasting my time, but I try nonetheless.

[patrickl]

Yep, seems the only way to debate on this forum is with cheap shots

yeah, really...patrick called me an uninformed yank....can you give him a time out and have him stand in the corner or something...my feelings were hurt

Ehm that's not exactly what happend. I warned you not to repeat a dumb statement over and over because otherwise you would look like an uninformed yank. But then if the shoe fits ...

[patrickl]

I think it goes a bit far to state these nations are violating sanctions. They are however looking out for their own interests yes. They had invested lots of money when there were no sanctions on these investments. The proceeds of these oil for food scams are not even remotely interesting to nations states. Of course there will be individuals making money off these deals, but you are not gonna find a link to a nation state as such.

Again, funny you should say it goes a bit too far...*LINK*  Here's a guy who said just that in his report...although he doesn't say France, he switches Syria with them..."Russia and Syria defied UN sanctions and supplied weapons and platforms"*LINK*

Now, you may play your game of "it's too far, he only said "defied", that's not the same".  I refer you to "SUPPLIED WEAPONS AND PLATFORMS".  

No link, you say, hey?  

I said you would find no proof linking the governments of France or Russia to misusing the oil for food program. And indeed you didn't.

But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say.

It says they have proof that trucks moved "things" to Syria. Wow  

I must say that it would be sad if Russian companies were supplying Iraq with weapons. But then I'm just as sad that US companies helped Saddam built and supplied his WMD factories. Again, who did what wrong has nothing to do with starting this war.

[DrewKaree]

Ya know, it's funny patrick, but I figured you to be the more informed one between you and Dex, and it seems you've just taken to adopting his "throw enough lies out there, something's bound to stick" tactic.

The US squanders half of the worlds resources used annually.

facts please

The greedy friends of GW, Cheney and Rumsfeld want to make ever more money.

Who, how, and ..sorry to be such a stickler for details...facts please

US officials can be bribed at the highest levels (Dick Cheney took $21 million)

Outright lie.  I guess I expected some facts.  Perhaps you'd like to include them?  Sprinkle 'em around...like salt

We're talking about the 1000 american soldiers that could have been prevented from dying had Bush better prepared the war

So how many would have died if Bush had "better prepared"?  Simply conjecture on your part, and no way to back it up with facts.

...and his army (and ours) suffered the consequences.

I don't care if you give facts here, as I'm just an evil Conservative, but when you say "ours" in reference to an army, what do you mean?  Surely your country isn't part of any coalition, since the U.S. is "going it alone".

Then the US claimed that Saddam must have quickly moved the stuff since it had to be there. Ehm yeah sure.

I thought you weren't going to say it isn't true    Perhaps you'll check out the story I linked to.  I await your spin take on it

The whole world knew that WMD presence was highly unlikely. Only the US government managed to convince some people that there was a WMD threat. that's still at least 5 billion people who understood there was no WMD threat.

Britain, Russia, Italy....I keep giving you the intelligence agencies that told US they believed Sadaam had WMD's, but whatever lets you sleep at night

The US is fighting for:
- the popularity of it's president
- the bankbook of it's vice president and the friends of the president
- the false sense of security it gives kicking someone in the nuts (even though he has nothing to do with the reason why you are scared, at least you DID something)

funny, those.  We have scads of elected officials preening around about Iraq, yet no one is saying pull out, yet you see us fighting for Bush's popularity, of which there are numerous reports out saying otherwise.  Something between your eyes and the processing center for them must be mixed up, as you seem to see things bass-ackwards.  

Nice, there's Cheney's wallet again.  I simply MUST insist you provide facts for your lies, or I'll have to keep coming back to say "Liar" OR, I'll have to start letting everyone know that we are skimming money to pay off the Netherlands to agree with us that there were WMD's, and that you guys are now hiding them, paying Dick Cheney's company for the materials to stash them.  

What you call a false sense of security is fine by me.  Some people in this world realize there's a time to kick arse, and I'm just glad we have someone like that as our President.

Does the pattern become a bit clearer perhaps?
US meddles -> trouble comes -> US is in bigger mess

yeah, it's clearer, but unfortunately, when everyone comes to us with their hand out and a hangdog expression on their face, we just can't seem to say no.  It's the liberals...if we could just ship 'em all to the Netherlands, we could stop helping...er...."meddling" in everyone's affairs.

The only thing threatening your schoolchildren is the loose weapons you have lying around over you country

you mean like the Islamic nutjobs had over in Russia when they held the whole school hostage?  Those kinds of guns?  Ya, yer prolly right, it just COULDN'T have been the wackos holding them, and we CERTAINLY don't have Islamic fundamentalists getting on planes, flying 'em into......wait a minute, nevermind

Good job spewing lies about Cheney/Haliburton.  Are you SURE you aren't a Democrat living in MA?  They don't have facts to back up their lies either, so I just figured.....

[DrewKaree]

Drew, for real man, there was no scam. I guess you picked up on one little item in the propaganda deluge and it stuck. However it's such a minor point that it cannot be the whole foundation of your argument. At least not if you don't want to look like an "uninformed yank".

*link*dude, for real man, I linked it YET AGAIN...if you don't want to look like an "uninformed partisan" mebbe you'd like to read it.  Propoganda would mean I'm trying to turn you to my way of thinking, and I'm not!  I just keep showing you the info.  I think it would serve you better to have the light bulb go off over your head than for me to club you over the head with the light bulb!  Perhaps you've been missing ALL of the other debates we've had, but it's not the only thing, it's just one point amongst many.  Should I just continue to give you point after point and if you don't agree, I just take my big red ball and go home?  

You view this as something America brought on itself.  I don't expect you to agree with me, but there are people here who might read this and think that you're right.  I give them my opinioin and let them decide.  I keep trying to hammer home this point because maybe there are people out there just like you, who don't get how this matters, and they may LIVE HERE IN THE U.S., so what THEY think WILL matter in a few days.

I'm supposed to sit here while you and Dexter, who CAN'T be more concerned than I am with who is elected, continue to bash a man I believe to be the best candidate, and that it is IMPERATIVE that he leads the U.S. for the next 4 years?  I can't do that.  Between Dexter's flat out LIES and your false claims and misleading statements, someone could be swayed and in turn, work on several others to see YOUR way

After this election, I've got 3 years to let blowhards like you bash my country all you want while we work to make the world a safer place.  Until November 4th when we all vote   refuting the lies is the least I can do.

Whats to say you won't hit 60,000 dead including civilians, which I hope you're including in your figures as their lives are every bit as valuable.

you're being disingenuous at best.  This war won't come close to the casualties from other wars if we apply the same criteria to ALL wars.  Find another ghoulish calculation to support your crackpot theories

And if you're such a model for democracy then why isn't President Gore in the Whitehouse? In my country every vote counts, no matter who you vote for or your race.

I grow tired of reading your pablum, but I must confess, you DO seem to fit your outright lies in quite well.  They almost blend right in.  

Mr Gore isn't the President because our country was set up long ago in a fashion agreeable to everyone all the way up to 2000, and even NOW, folks who would believe like you, have had their civics lesson and understand why our election system is the way it is.  

Lastly, there were no votes uncounted due to race in our last election.  You are quite simply a bald-faced liar by stating something such as that.

There simply is not a little box on my ballot where I check to identify myself as red, yellow, black, or white.  For you to put forth that sentence is simply irresponsible without backing it up with something other than your bile-filled diatribe against Bush and the conservatives in America.

[patrickl]

Ya know, it's funny patrick, but I figured you to be the more informed one between you and Dex, and it seems you've just taken to adopting his "throw enough lies out there, something's bound to stick" tactic.

Drew I'm not using your tactic, I am however showing how pathetic it is. Besides, I just can't be bothered to find your precious links for you since you don;t read/understand/beleif them anyway.

The US squanders half of the worlds resources used annually.

facts please

That is a fact.

The greedy friends of GW, Cheney and Rumsfeld want to make ever more money.

Who, how, and ..sorry to be such a stickler for details...facts please

That is an opinion, but it is based on the fact that capaitalism works that way. I actually already provided links on this issue.

US officials can be bribed at the highest levels (Dick Cheney took $21 million)

Outright lie.  I guess I expected some facts.  Perhaps you'd like to include them?  Sprinkle 'em around...like salt

Well this is just as much a fact as the claim that France and Russia where defying the UN resolutions.

We're talking about the 1000 american soldiers that could have been prevented from dying had Bush better prepared the war

So how many would have died if Bush had "better prepared"?  Simply conjecture on your part, and no way to back it up with facts.

It mightj be with hindsight, but to me it seems pretty obvious that the Iraq war has resulted in a mess. Bush claims the war is over and then bascially the war is yet to begin. You don't see an area where the war could have been handled better? How about not sending home the Iraqi army and Iraqi police force. I hear you "think" that that would have been a bad idea. Do you know how the US is now recruiting the new Iraqi police force and army?

...and his army (and ours) suffered the consequences.

I don't care if you give facts here, as I'm just an evil Conservative, but when you say "ours" in reference to an army, what do you mean?  Surely your country isn't part of any coalition, since the U.S. is "going it alone".

I'm afraid I can't follow your reasoning. The Netherlands allthough small actually has an army. Part of it is in Iraq to help the Iraqi and US get out of this mess. In fact my nephew is there.

Then the US claimed that Saddam must have quickly moved the stuff since it had to be there. Ehm yeah sure.

I thought you weren't going to say it isn't true    Perhaps you'll check out the story I linked to.  I await your spin take on it

I read that story and replied to it already. "Trucks moved things across the border".

Actually I was talking about something else. Blix was sent to specific factories and areas in Iraq based on information the CIA had about where teh WMD were. Blix went there and none were there. They did surprise visits on locations to be "known" to house WMD or production of WMD. The US (IRC Colin Powel) went before the UN claiming that the weapons were quickly removed shortly before Blix would arrive. Agreed who knows, that migtht be true. On the other hand several of the visists were surprise inspections. They would have had no time to hide the WMD. Mind you, it's not so easy to get rid of this stuff. Apparently even after you remove it the inspectores can prove the stuff was there before.

The whole world knew that WMD presence was highly unlikely. Only the US government managed to convince some people that there was a WMD threat. that's still at least 5 billion people who understood there was no WMD threat.

Britain, Russia, Italy....I keep giving you the intelligence agencies that told US they believed Sadaam had WMD's, but whatever lets you sleep at night

That's the same thing the CIA said. There might be WMD, but we aren't sure.  Then the CIA said, lets send Hans Blix in to find the WMD since we know where they are. But then of course Hans Blix found nothing.

I sleep fine yes. Thank god we don;t have a government who thinks it;s a good idea to scare the holy crap out of it's inhabitants just to make sure it's re-elected again. In fact we tend to think more for ourselves overhere so this kind of strategy wouldn't even work.

The US is fighting for:
- the popularity of it's president
- the bankbook of it's vice president and the friends of the president
- the false sense of security it gives kicking someone in the nuts (even though he has nothing to do with the reason why you are scared, at least you DID something)

funny, those.  We have scads of elected officials preening around about Iraq, yet no one is saying pull out, yet you see us fighting for Bush's popularity, of which there are numerous reports out saying otherwise.  Something between your eyes and the processing center for them must be mixed up, as you seem to see things bass-ackwards.

Well you have a point there, you should substitute "fighting for" with "started a war because". Of course bush and partners started this war for aforementioned reasons, but they ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- it up and now it's backfiring.

Nice, there's Cheney's wallet again.  I simply MUST insist you provide facts for your lies, or I'll have to keep coming back to say "Liar" OR, I'll have to start letting everyone know that we are skimming money to pay off the Netherlands to agree with us that there were WMD's, and that you guys are now hiding them, paying Dick Cheney's company for the materials to stash them.  

It's nice to see you understand that these dumb accusations do nothing to prove my case. If only you'd understand that the reverse also holds. it would be nice if you would not come with these dumb accusations yourself. I hope you know understand this since you apparently did see through my ploy here.

What you call a false sense of security is fine by me.  Some people in this world realize there's a time to kick arse, and I'm just glad we have someone like that as our President.

With false sense of security I mean that Bush attacks a guy who is merely a regional threat at best and claims he is helping the security of the US. That's false.

Iraq had no impact on US security. Saddam was a supporter of the palestinian cause and he hired some goons against the kurds. That's basically all the links to terorism that were uncovered. Oh yeah, and an Iraqi offical met with Osama Bin Laden.

Does the pattern become a bit clearer perhaps?
US meddles -> trouble comes -> US is in bigger mess

yeah, it's clearer, but unfortunately, when everyone comes to us with their hand out and a hangdog expression on their face, we just can't seem to say no.  It's the liberals...if we could just ship 'em all to the Netherlands, we could stop helping...er...."meddling" in everyone's affairs.

Ehm noone came with their hand out. Bush forced this war on us. In fact everyone was against it by at least 10 to 1.

The only thing threatening your schoolchildren is the loose weapons you have lying around over you country

you mean like the Islamic nutjobs had over in Russia when they held the whole school hostage?  Those kinds of guns?  Ya, yer prolly right, it just COULDN'T have been the wackos holding them, and we CERTAINLY don't have Islamic fundamentalists getting on planes, flying 'em into......wait a minute, nevermind

What does this have to do with Iraq?

Good job spewing lies about Cheney/Haliburton.  Are you SURE you aren't a Democrat living in MA?  They don't have facts to back up their lies either, so I just figured.....

It's at least a fact that Cheney gets $1 annually from them. I can;t recall exactly, but I saw that $20 claim come by a few times too. In fact I don't even care. I was just demonstrating how patheric it is to come with such ridiculous accusations all the time.

The fact still remains that:
-  the Iraq war is handled poorly and that it's much more likely that it increases terorism than that it will decrease.
- practically the whole world was against this war even before it started

ps. damned quotes

[patrickl]

Propoganda would mean I'm trying to turn you to my way of thinking, and I'm not!  I just keep showing you the info.

Propagada is the stuff you watch on your television.

For instance the idea that the US is making the world safer is propaganda. In fact the US is the biggest reason the world is at war all over right now. You migth argue that the US is making the US safer by starting wars and attracting the ruffians there, but in the end these ruffians will go looking for ways to hit the US. So inthe end the US is even making the world unsafer for the US. Understanding that is called "thinking".

[Dexter]

Lastly, there were no votes uncounted due to race in our last election. You are quite simply a bald-faced liar by stating something such as that.

Here we go again. I did not state what you imply and am far from being a bald-faced liar (classy by the way). I was referring to the disenfranchised voters (mainly non-white, mainly democrat voters) who were denied their constitutional right to vote in Florida in 2000. But I suppose you're right by default, everybody who was LET vote by Jeb and co had their vote counted, to hell with those that were denied the oppertunity, they would for the most part voted dem anyway and President Gore would be in his rightful position.

Mr Gore isn't the President because our country was set up long ago in a fashion agreeable to everyone all the way up to 2000, and even NOW, folks who would believe like you, have had their civics lesson and understand why our election system is the way it is.  

Fair enough, but I think I'll stick with voting in the fashion agreeable to my country where every citizen is entitled to vote and their vote is counted. So, who has the real democracy at the end of the day?? Your constitution gives every US citizen the right to vote. If this had been allowed to happen, as protected under your constitution, Gore would be in the Whitehouse, thanks to the constitutional rights of the individual to vote. Did this happen?

Its a joke, Bush was not elected democratically but thinks he can impose democracy on other nations. This is akin to Hannibal Lecter gatecrashing your dinner party and forcing everyone to go with the vegetarian option.

Dexter

[Dartful Dodger]

Well, over here you are still welcome. There is a lot of understanding for the fact that the last election was stolen and that as a result Bushes policies are not the direction America was supposed to be taken in. This, however, will change if Bush wins this one fairly, as it will be seen as the American people endorsing the war in Iraq.

We understand, you're still mad that Gore lost, nothing Bush can do will be right, blah blah blah, get over it, Bush will do what's best for America, and that is why he must win.

[patrickl]

Well, over here you are still welcome. There is a lot of understanding for the fact that the last election was stolen and that as a result Bushes policies are not the direction America was supposed to be taken in. This, however, will change if Bush wins this one fairly, as it will be seen as the American people endorsing the war in Iraq.

We understand, you're still mad that Gore lost, nothing Bush can do will be right, blah blah blah, get over it, Bush will do what's best for America, and that is why he must win.

Why would he all of a sudden start doing things right? He has just about done everything wrong so far!

[shmokes]

*link*dude, for real man, I linked it YET AGAIN...if you don't want to look like an "uninformed partisan" mebbe you'd like to read it.

Honestly Drew.   If you're going to have a tizzy fit and get your panties in a twist about someone refusing to click on your links you might work on building up a little credibility.  You have a tendency to link us to some really REALLY absurd crap.  

Here's a nice little piece from the New Yorker that gives us a little insight into "The World Tribune" that Drew has linked us to.

http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?030908ta_talk_mcgrath

Do you ever stop to question why you have to frequent fanatical extremist websites in order to find "evidence" to back up your arguments?  

Unfortunately I can only afford to take the time to give you these rebukes about once or twice a month because of the sheer mass of links you bombard us with on a daily basis.  So most of your junk just flies in under the radar because I haven't the time to be a constant link-police.

Ya know.  I dislike Michael Moore, but unlike most the conservatives here I have a right to dislike him.  I've got the moral ground to stand on when I criticize him.  But while you go crazy on Moore, you laud Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reily and Hannity.  And then you personally use the same tactics that Moore uses.  It's the pot calling the Kettle black.  If you're going to fault Moore for being a liberal, fine.  But if you're going to fault him for his lack of journalistic integrity you really ought to have wherewithall to apply those principles across the board, including to yourself.

[TA Pilot]

"...but things would be a lot better now from an 'insurgency' point of view as the Iraqi people would know their only reason for invasion would be for the greater good..."


Dude...

The Ba'athists and the radical militant Islamo-fascists ( you know... the people blowing up innocent Iraqi kids as they're getting candy from GIs ) dont give a DAMN about the "greater good".

[TA Pilot]

Fair enough, but I think I'll stick with voting in the fashion agreeable to my country where every citizen is entitled to vote and their vote is counted.

You're confused here...
Every vote WAS counted.  Every ballot was not.  A ballot does not become a vote until is is legally cast and then legally counted.  Not all ballots can be legally counted - and this was the casew in election 2000.


Your constitution gives every US citizen the right to vote.

No.  It doesnt.
The US Constitution says -nothing- about the people having the right to vote for President.  The states have plenary power to determine their electors however they want - and NOTHING forces them to put it to a vote of the people.


If this had been allowed to happen, as protected under your constitution, Gore would be in the Whitehouse,

No.  He would not.  Because:
-There is no right to vote for President
-All of the ballots that were legally cast could be legally counted, were.



thanks to the constitutional rights of the individual to vote. Did this happen?

There is no such right.



Its a joke, Bush was not elected democratically

Thats right.
But then, NO US President has been elected democratically.

[saint]

Guys - tone down the tag line images please. If they could be slightly less than half my available screen I'd be happy

--- saint

[Mameotron]

Fair enough, but I think I'll stick with voting in the fashion agreeable to my country where every citizen is entitled to vote and their vote is counted. So, who has the real democracy at the end of the day?? Your constitution gives every US citizen the right to vote. If this had been allowed to happen, as protected under your constitution, Gore would be in the Whitehouse, thanks to the constitutional rights of the individual to vote. Did this happen?

Every time you make statements like this, you just show your ignorance of our voting system.  No, it's not perfect, but there IS NO perfect system.
The electoral college system we use is what we have decided is the BEST way for a MAJORITY of people to get the FAIREST representation.  As Fredster has pointed out in other threads, if we just let everyone vote and only counted total votes, then New York and Los Angeles would decide all political issues for the entire country.  EVERYONE who did not live in a large metropolis would be casting useless ballots.

Remember, the biggest reason America had for establishing itself as a soverign nation was the fact that we had way too little representaiton in the British government.

[DrewKaree]

You gotta stop surfing the 'net from your mame machine  

How'd I do?

[Dexter]

So, NO US president is elected democratically and a persons vote carries different weight depending on where they live. Brilliant LOL

By the way, again I point to the word 'disenfranchised' and ask you who has the real democracy?

[TA Pilot]

So, NO US president is elected democratically and a persons vote carries different weight depending on where they live. Brilliant LOL


We've been doing it this way since 1791.
This is news to you?

[Dexter]

We've been doing it this way since 1791.
This is news to you?

Yes. I thought that in the greatest democracy in the world that the vote of a man who has fought and been left in a wheelchair for his country in one state might carry as much weight as the same veteran in another. Thats of course if he hasn't been disenfranchised by Jeb and co because chances are he will vote Democrat.

'Disenfranchised' was my point, and again I ask, who has the real democracy if this is allowed happen to law-abiding citizens? And thanks to the patriot act and elements who call you 'unpatriotic' or worse if you don't back the slaughter in Iraq, who has the real freedom at the end of the day?

[TA Pilot]

Yes. I thought that in the greatest democracy in the world that the vote of a man who has fought and been left in a wheelchair for his country in one state might carry as much weight as the same veteran in another.


The United States isnt a democracy in the technical sense.   Its a Federal Republic.

See, in the United States, the states, not the people, elect the President.  This is because the President is the head of state, and the state is a federation of the 50 states.   The President is not the representative of the people in the federal government, congress is.

And so, the people do not elect the President.  The people do not have a right to vote for President; a state could decide to seat its electors via coil toss and the people would have absolutely no recourse (save voting in a new legislature).

[Dexter]

And so, the people do not elect the President.  The people do not have a right to vote for President; a state could decide to seat its electors via coil toss and the people would have absolutely no recourse (save voting in a new legislature).

The people have no recourse? And this gives America the moral right to impress a democratic system on another country how?? The world saw how the Floridian vote was manipulated in 2000 (hence the asterisk beside Bushes name that will always mark his illegitimate presidency in the history books) to suit bushco. If this is liberty in action I'm beginning to understand how the farsical elections in Afghanistan and Iraq might be excused by Republicans.

Government of the people, by the people for the people. But you may be disenfranchised and if you do vote there may be no paper trail. God bless America, where you're free to vote as long as its Republican. I love it!

[TA Pilot]

The people have no recourse?

Thats right.  They cannot take it to court.   Well, they CAN, but the court will uphold the law.
Why?
Because the people have no right to vote for President.



And this gives America the moral right to impress a democratic system on another country how??

Our right to do this doesnt flow from our particular form of democracy.



The world saw how the Floridian vote was manipulated in 2000 (hence the asterisk beside Bushes name that will always mark his illegitimate presidency in the history books) to suit bushco.

You dont have a -clue- as to what happened in the 2000 election.   All you know is what you've been told by people that don't like Bush.

[Dexter]

Our right to do this doesnt flow from our particular form of democracy.

Oh, so you have the RIGHT to do this. What does it flow from exactly. This should be good!


You dont have a -clue- as to what happened in the 2000 election.   All you know is what you've been told by people that don't like Bush.

Ah yes, again I am being told what I know, where I learnt it from and by who! I really do have to grimmace at some peoples abilities to have all the answers considering they don't know the questions. How are you privvy to the knowledge I've acquired, beginning with the reporting of the 2000 farce, watching with the rest of the world as an election was stolen with the skill of criminal masterminds. Oh how we laughed!

[TA Pilot]

Oh, so you have the RIGHT to do this. What does it flow from exactly. This should be good!

When you win a war, you have the right (actually, the responsibility) to set up a new government in the defeated country.  Thats what we're doing.  Thats what we've done in every country that we've defeated - Japan/S.Korea, Germany, et al.



Ah yes, again I am being told what I know, where I learnt it from and by who!

OK, bright eyes:
Tell me what was wrong with the 7-2 Equal Protection ruling by the USSC that decided the outcome of the Florida election.

[Dexter]

When you win a war, you have the right (actually, the responsibility) to set up a new government in the defeated country. Thats what we're doing.

What war?? It takes two sides to war. America INVADED Iraq, a soverign country. There was no war, there was a massacre and an installation of a puppet government and theiving of its resources. Why don't I knock in next door with a bazooka, blow my 90 year old disabled neighbour to pieces, move into his house and call it a fair fight. When you win a fight you have the right, yes??

Tell me what was wrong with the 7-2 Equal Protection ruling by the USSC that decided the outcome of the Florida election.

There were five things wrong - namely Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist, and Clarence Thomas. They terminated the orderly recount of  undervotes in Florida by partisan and illegitimate federal judicial edicts, causing votes cast by thousands of citizens in that state to be left uncounted and the rightful winner of Florida's electoral votes to be left undetermined To quote: It prevented the democratic election of the head of the Executive branch of the federal government in the year 2000 from being concluded in conformity with constitutionally prescribed state and Electoral College procedures (as duly determined, in Florida's case, by the state Supreme Court);

I could make this 10 pages long. But seeing as though I 'don't have a clue' and am obviously unable to make up my own mind on the issues I won't bother  

[TA Pilot]

What war?? It takes two sides to war. America INVADED Iraq, a soverign country

American and her allies invaded Iraq.  Thus: war.



Why don't I knock in next door with a bazooka, blow my 90 year old disabled neighbour to pieces, move into his house and call it a fair fight. When you win a fight you have the right, yes??

'Fair' doesnt have anything to do with it.
That, and domestic law doesnt apply to warfare.



I could make this 10 pages long.

Given the answer you've supplied thus far - no, you could not.

The USSC ruled 7-2 that FL election law and the final rilung form the FLSC failed to provide equal protection to the voters of Florida.

How is this ruling in error?

[Dartful Dodger]

Why don't I knock in next door with a bazooka, blow my 90 year old disabled neighbour to pieces, move into his house and call it a fair fight. When you win a fight you have the right, yes??

You can't take your neighbors house, you have to buy it.

We we're forced to buy Iraq at the cost of 3000 innocent Americans.

[Dexter]

We we're forced to buy Iraq at the cost of 3000 innocent Americans.

Do YOU even believe you??

American and her allies invaded Iraq.  Thus: war.

Right, so because the invasion involoved a coalition it was not an invasion. By the same thinking, if America had to go it alone and invaded Iraq then it WOULDN'T be a war, is this what you are saying?

That, and domestic law doesnt apply to warfare.
Neither does trhe Geneva convention thanks to Rummy and the boys.

Given the answer you've supplied thus far - no, you could not
Oh I think you'll find I could. But I'll do it for you in a sentence instead. The will of the people, the foundation of any 'democracy' was ignored in the rulings. Therefore the election outcome was not determined in conformity with constitutionally prescribed state and Electoral College procedures.

Fake President, fake war, fake everything really.

[TA Pilot]

Right, so because the invasion involoved a coalition it was not an invasion. By the same thinking, if America had to go it alone and invaded Iraq then it WOULDN'T be a war, is this what you are saying?

No, it seems to be what Dexter is saying.

In reality, that the US, et al, invaded Iraq in no way means that Iraq isnt/wasn't a war.




Given the answer you've supplied thus far - no, you could not
Oh I think you'll find I could.

Then stand and deliver.




The will of the people, the foundation of any 'democracy' was ignored in the rulings. Therefore the election outcome was not determined in conformity with constitutionally prescribed state and Electoral College procedures.

Um....
"The will of the people" isnt mentioned in electoral college procedure... and the procedure found in FL election law and the ruling by the FLSC violated the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution.
So...  your "one sentence" doesnt at all address the issue.

The USSC said, 7-2, the ballots could not be counted because FL election law and the FLSC violated the US Constitution.   How was the USSC wrong?



Fake President, fake war, fake everything really.

Whats the matter?  Reality isnt what you want, so you chose to disbelieve?   Thats fine - but dont cry when people dont take you seriously.

[Dexter]

Then stand and deliver.

And pad out to 10 pages what I summed up in a sentence. Don't think so. In a democracy, the will of the people is paramount. You have not disputed this point. I won't be elaborating on it further as it would not change its substance. End of story.

In reality, that the US, et al, invaded Iraq in no way means that Iraq isnt/wasn't a war.

It was a massacre and still is. When did the war take place exactly? When Iraq was invaded? They never wanted a war and the miniscule amount of fighting the Iraqi army did was to repel an invading force. War?? Did it also end when junior stood on the aircraft carrier with the 'mission accomplished' sign behind him. A war on terror cannot be won, but Iraq, as the world knows, never had anything to do with the war on terror.

Whats the matter?  Reality isnt what you want, so you chose to disbelieve?  Thats fine - but dont cry when people dont take you seriously.
The person not being taken seriously is your thief-in-chief, who cannot organise an invasion, an economy or even a sentence. He sends people to their death in the name of God and freedom (God talks to him dontchya know) when it's for neither. He is the unfunniest joke in world politics and his actions have damaged America a massive amount. We'll see November 3 if this damage is permanent.

[TA Pilot]

And pad out to 10 pages what I summed up in a sentence.

Then you;re in rough shape, as your one sentence was woefully Inadequate, as I demisntrated.

Now please tell me:
How was the 7-2 equal protection decision in error?

(hint:  it will help if you actually read Bush v Gore)



Don't think so. In a democracy, the will of the people is paramount. You have not disputed this point.

There are SO many reasons why you're wrong here.  In NUMEROUS instances, the "will of the people" - that is, the decision of the majority - is not adhered to in our system of governent - any time where you need 2/3 or 3/4 majority, for instance.

Never mind the fact that The People, under our system, dont elect the President.   This, alone, renders your argument invalid.



I won't be elaborating on it further as it would not change its substance. End of story.

Thats right - becasuse anything you say under this line of reasoning can be easily refuted, as above.



It was a massacre and still is.

How does that mean its not a war?



When did the war take place exactly? When Iraq was invaded?

19/20 March 2003 to present.



They never wanted a war and the miniscule amount of fighting the Iraqi army did was to repel an invading force. War??

Um...  yes.   That one side did not effectively resist in no way means its not a war.  By your line of reasoning, the German invasion of Poland, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Luxembourg was not a "war" either.



A war on terror cannot be won, but Iraq, as the world knows, never had anything to do with the war on terror.

Irrelevant to your point.  And, of course, entirely wrong.