The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: DrewKaree on October 16, 2004, 01:25:00 am
-
And so begins another patented DrewKaree LinkFest 2004TM. Careful, biased reports WILL be mixed in!
I admit it, the war WAS about oil. See here for details (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaunders/ds20041014.shtml)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And we get to help pay for the investigation! What's the deal, it's about oil...investigation over! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3741780.stm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank goodness Russia is committed to the U.N.'s goals and wouldn't work to subvert them ::) (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/10/15/005.html)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey fredster, check this out....another country reporting on something I haven't heard in the U.S.! If this keeps happening, I'll welcome them sticking their nose into our business, although I'm not so sure, as this story says, anyone cares much about anything OTHER than WMD's anymore. (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1199302004) If we can't find those, we should never have gone in there, no matter the reason....perhaps Bush spoke about the reasons, somewhere, hmm, mebbe those can be found and posted here by someone else ::)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
so PERHAPS they'll want to offer their help in Iraq. Would THESE guys helping constitute a "stronger coalition"? (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/13/germany.iraq/index.html) Yeah, they're all over it. "in a few years". Maybe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this a Patriot Act thing? Or is it a "we want an autograph thing? (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/14/woods.yatch/index.html) Sorry, just had to throw this in for a "National Enquirer" feel. They DID put the words "homeland security" in the article ;D
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, not ANOTHER "war for oil". When will the "Oil Wars" stop, and why aren't the people speaking out against the government? (http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=5968)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Those darn Scotsmen and their opinions on the U.S. and their involvement with the U.N. I'm starting to like the Scotsmen, even if they have nothing to do with the country! (http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1199182004) Hey, how ARE those sanctions working?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This guy has the gall to say "Al-Qaeda and its affiliates understand, even if some Democrats apparently do not, that America has not acted alone." (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005748) Wait, I agree with him. Nevermind.
I'm just glad all these issues are being reported on so widely in the U.S. so we can see that the U.N. is THE group we should turn to when deciding what to do regarding American interests.
-
Drew, I can't help myself. I just have to post a quote from one of the articles you linked.
"War critics in America, who will never look at the Duelfer report, will cite it as proof that the war in Iraq was ill considered. Apparently, they don't care that Hussein misled the world.
Or that he was gearing up to manufacture more lethal weapons.
Or that he killed Shiite Iraqis with WMD under the watch of the United Nations.
They only care about bashing Bush."
Ok, here's one more quote I can't resist.
"Osama bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Sudan in late 1994 or early 1995".
Couldn't say it better myself. Now, on with the "biased reporting" attacks.
-
Why would Annan, his son, France, or Germany join? They were making a boatload of money from the food-for-oil program. France and German KNEW that if we went into Iraq, the'd lose their free money, and get found out that they were supporting Saddam's wallet.
-
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.
Why is it so surprising that Saddam tried to circumvent the sanctions? Who wouldn't? How would the US react if sanctions were imposed on them. In fact, how honest do companies in the US behave now? Of course one needs to prevent that kind of illegal actions, but it's hardly a surprise that people try to make money off of situations like that. I don't see what point it makes. Is it a reason to start a war or something?
So Iraqi officials met with Osama Bin Laden. That says ... wel basically nothing. Maybe Saddam sent him a strippogram for his birthday. On the other hand, Osama said Saddam offered him money and he turned the "infidel" down.
Saddam tried to hand out money to terrorists and they turned him down. If any of them accepted money then who's to say they didn't just rip Saddam off? He did have a shitload of explosive vests though. He must have bought them somewhere. I doubt they came from a reputable arms factory.
-
France and Russia are violating sanctions of the U.N., of which they are a member.
When it comes time to go to war, France and Russia make it their personal goal to get the U.N. to NOT approve actions against Sadaam.
France and Russia have the gall to act as if we are doing something wrong by going against what the U.N. has (or in this case, has not) decided to do about Sadaam.
This seems pretty easy to follow as to why it's important.
Do you wish to give France and Russia a pass on their actions and ignore their hypocrisy?
As for Bush stealing oil, back up your charge with facts, otherwise you're spewing lies for partisan reasons.
What's next for you? Bush is killing people in Sudan?
-
France and Russia are violating sanctions of the U.N., of which they are a member.
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.
The problem the whole world apart from the US and Tony Blair (the rest of the UK seems dead set against this war too) have with this war is that it was forced. Bush wanted a war and he simply started it. Even though he could not think of a believable reason for it. That's just annoying and it makes people suspicious of his motives.
Iraq was never a threat to the US and never would be. Saddam had "intentions", but even the proof obtained on the programs he had speak of useless weapons. The guy was a dumb farmer with delusions of grandeur. The only damage Iraq was doing was to the wallets of the big american oil wasters by increasing oil prices. Now take a look at the oil prices ...
If you blame France and Russia for supporting Iraq, remember who supported Iraq in the late 80s? Did you know Rumsfeld met with Saddam? I'm not saying that makes him a terrorist, but it does show the US was involved in the buildup of Saddams empire. Rumsfeld was there trying to sell deals while Saddam was gassing the kurds and the UN was passing judgements on that. Apparently he didn't give a rats ass about Saddam using WMD at the time. Rumsfeld was just jealous that other countries started stealing the good deals when Saddam told the US to bugger off after they tried to screw him on some pipeline deals (or something).
Even worse, how do you think the CIA (also called UNSCOM in 1998) "knew" how many WMD Saddam had at his disposal? Well, US companies delivered most of the equipment and chemicals used in the production of these weapons. The US even went so far as to have the parts incriminating to US companies removed from the Iraqi report presented to the UN (or at least to the lesser important members)
And on another note, how do you think the US knew where the "terrorist bases" were in Afghanistan? The CIA helped build these camps. In fact the US led camps trained Osama Bin Laden and his partners in crime so he could be a terrorist against the ruski's. Unfortunately the whole deal backfired and now you're stuck with the mess. When you play with fire you get burned. Would you trust the people who put Osama in place to be honest in their reports on the issue?
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.
There is never one side to a story. Your government has made so many mistakes and violated/stopped so many UN resolutions it staggers belief that they even dare calling upon those resolutions in their own defense.
-
Thank goodness. For a moment there, I thought you were going to say the U.S. was bad because our flag was too pretty too ::)
So why didn't we "steal" all the oil before, remember, back when we went there the first time, or when Rumsfeld was busy getting a second job buying off Sadaam, or...what else has the U.S. done? It's hard keeping up with just exactly what we have and haven't done, and how it does or doesn't tie in with why we should or shouldn't give all our money to everyone else and put on sackcloth and gnash our teeth.
It's a bit of the gaudy jackass American in me, I'll have to admit. Here I was thinking we did good things (or is it part of our penance for being so bad that we always seem to be the first one hit up for money or troops or whatever resources we can give to better someone else), and come to find out, we've been crapping in everyone's well ever since time began ::)
Fine, they didn't "violate" sanctions. What about the charge of Sadaam using the oil for food program to fund his weapons programs. What about the charge that France and Russia were profiting on OIL, not "investments", through the oil for food program? What about the possibility that they had those "investments" because they were screwing people on that OIL they were getting through that program? What about that they knew if the oil for food program was stopped, they'd lose money, not on INVESTMENTS, but OIL, OIL MAN, OIL!
You throw accusations of theft by Bush...OIL....I see you totally dismissing the OIL part of the Oil for Food program and how it was abused by both sides, brushing that off because of their "investments" in the area. Since we went to war for the oil, where's your indignant outrage of the oil issue with France or Russia?
How about the charge that France and Russia had a direct hand in helping to shape the opinion of the rest of the world, and they did so BECAUSE OF THE OIL.
You want to make a baseless accusation towards Bush about stealing oil. France and Russia didn't have to STEAL the oil, they were being given oil by Sadaam.
You try to paint Sadaam as some backwoods hick too dumb to scratch his own arse. That's ridiculous. I'm sure the people who lived there have a different opinion of him than you, and it's prolly more accurate. I'd bet dollars to donuts they find him a lot smarter than you want to give him credit for.
You don't have to appreciate the act right now, and you don't have to give credit for removing Sadaam, but life is better in Iraq because he is no longer in power. For whatever reason we went in, the Iraqi people have the chance to become more than was ever possible under Sadaam's rule. And contrary to what you've been told and believed, we didn't just go into Iraq to find WMD's, Bush laid out why we would go to war. Find the case he laid out for why we would go to war with Iraq, as it seems the "monorail" issue has become WMD's. We WERE looking for WMD's, but of all the reasons given, that wasn't the overriding reason.
-
The point is not so much if Iraq is better off without Saddam or not, but more if a better prepared war would have had a better result. I'd say, this whole war could have been much better executed had it been better prepared (especially for the period after the main war itself).
I'm not saying the actions of France or Russia are OK, I'm just getting a bit tired of the one sided views people (you in this case) try to pass of as ... yeah as what really?
What worries me is that you don't even know what damage your government is (and has been) doing. The terrorists are "created" by these actions. People don't just get up in the morning and think "Hey lets kill myself in an attempt to hurt some americans".
-
You'll have to keep worrying about me, as I'm under no pretense that we "created" these terrorists.
They hate us for everything that makes our country great. It also happens to violently disagree with their views, of which, are formed by the religious views and their interpretation of their religious doctrines.
I realize that the people who wish to do harm to us by flying planes into our buildings, work on chemical weapons to use against us, or strap bombs to themselve to use against us will decide to target us because their "god" told them to.
I agree with you when you say "People don't just get up in the morning and think "Hey lets kill myself in an attempt to hurt some americans". That's right, they don't. It's a religious delusion they're under...they get up MANY mornings thinking that, and work towards hurting as many Americans as possible...that's why they wait, just one more day, until some morning, the plan falls into line. It's why the second day that the World Trade Center was attacked was so much more effective. They woke up every morning knowing they would kill themselves in an attempt to hurt some Americans. They just had to plan the best way to hurt as many as they could. They view themselves as doing "god's work", and they're committed to the ultimate sacrifice to destroy the "sinners".
We didn't "create" these deluded people. If America is wiped off the face of the earth, they'll move on to the next group of "sinners" their god tells them to destroy.
-
The point is not so much if Iraq is better off without Saddam or not, but more if a better prepared war would have had a better result. I'd say, this whole war could have been much better executed had it been better prepared (especially for the period after the main war itself).
I get the feeling, by your words, that it doesn't matter if we had "better prepared" this war. The result would have been the same - pissing off the people because we squatted in the wrong place in their village. As far as I can see, there ISN'T a winning situation in your scenario, other than to never go to war in the first place. Perhaps you can explain differently to me, or let me know I've hit the nail on the head.
Even if wars STOPPED happening, everyone all over the world will be pissed off by someone for some reason. This isn't a uniquely "look what America did to us" thing, and America HAS helped the world in areas where others were too weak to stand up for themselves, or help in areas where others were only looking for self-serving objectives. If that pisses people off, so be it. There's simply NO POSSIBLE WAY that some country won't be pissed off at another for some trifling reason.
You aren't saying the actions of France or Russia are OK, but you CERTAINLY are defending their actions as some sort of "they had investments, so it was ok" deal.
My one sided view is a stand, of sorts, for what I believe to be right. You have given many views, vaguely worded solutions (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in calling them solutions, although Bush DID follow your "solutions") and the only stand I can seem to draw from your words is that America is screwing themselves even worse by doing something, and we've hosed the rest of the world so much that it makes France/Russia's actions a drop in the bucket, so we should focus on the U.S. and fix US first, and worry about what went on with them second - all that being said, Iraq is better off, but we went and did it wrong.
Thanks for the backhanded "compliment", I think.
Again, I find myself wondering if you truly DO believe Iraq is better off, or if waiting another couple of years would have been the right way to deal with Sadaam.
What I worry about is the fact you are completely unwilling to acknowledge the fact that we weren't the only ones who offered such knowledge about Sadaam.
I worry because you are completely willing to assign blame to the U.S. It doesn't even seem to phase you that Russia gave the same information, made calls to Bush about a possible attack by Sadaam, Britain gave the same info.....ad nauseum. It's not a rationale, it's called enough people are telling us the same thing....it's time to ACT!
If you looked outside and saw the sky, how many people would have to tell you it was blue before you'd agree that it was, indeed, blue?
-
Well I tried, but I'll give up now. Either you are unable or just unwilling to understand my posts.
I just hope you at least will learn to think for yourself about things instead of just lapping up the propaganda. Try also to think why things happen as opposed to how much military it will take to "solve" the problem.
-
The UN exists for a reason, for the good of ALL humanity. Going into Iraq under a UN mandate as a united force would have still led to the ousting of Saddam 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. Of course, the reasons NOW given for the war i.e. the removal of evil Saddam, would never cause the UN to invade as it is a soverign country. If Blix had been let complete his job we would have found out the reasons for going to war was false, bush was never going to allow that to happen thus the rush to war. The US are seen as the invading force, slaughtering innocent women and children and stealing the countrys natural resource. Only the UN can win the peace now.
Dexter
-
The US are seen as the invading force, slaughtering innocent women and children and stealing the countrys natural resource.
I think you're confused with Kerry's Vietnam.
-
It's deeply hypocritical of Bush and his supporters to criticise the UN for being ineffectual.
The UN is undeniably a deeply flawed organisation. But this isn't an accident. The powerful countries that set up the UN after the war (including the USA) deliberately set up the organisation in such a way as to ensure its power was limited, and most of the time this suits the USA very nicely.
The main problem is the veto system which is a recipe for inaction. It's ridiculous that one country can throw a spanner in the works.
Indeed the USA has used its veto on numerous occasions in the past. In fact it has often found itself in a minority of one. However, when France and a number of other countries threatened to use their vetos (as they were perfectly entitled to do) Bush cried foul and simply chose to ignore the UN altogether. This is a blatant example of double standards.
The UN (flawed as it is) is the closest thing we have to international democracy. Without the UN we simply have the law of the jungle. It would be more constructive if America used its economic and political leverage to push for much needed reform of the UN instead of undermining it.
-
Well I tried, but I'll give up now. Either you are unable or just unwilling to understand my posts.
I just hope you at least will learn to think for yourself about things instead of just lapping up the propaganda. Try also to think why things happen as opposed to how much military it will take to "solve" the problem.
As long as we're speaking propoganda, I also hope the same thing for you. This "America bad, everyone else good" attitude is fine for you, but to act as if that isn't some propoganda foisted on people overlooks the good that the U.S. does worldwide for the sake of political views.
The UN exists for a reason, for the good of ALL humanity.
So the dictators who are members somehow are humaintarians? Oh, and it may "exist" for the good of all humanity, but its choices as to which part of "humanity" it chooses to help is just a bit suspect, what with the fraud within the programs to "help humanity"
Going into Iraq under a UN mandate as a united force would have still led to the ousting of Saddam
Kind of like the first time we did it, right? I mean, the U.N. DID finish the job and get him out after that mandate.
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.
They do know it, however, for political reasons there's nothing to be gained by showing it on television. Find some Iraqi's....they appreciate what's being done far more than you are willing to admit
Of course, the reasons NOW given for the war i.e. the removal of evil Saddam, would never cause the UN to invade as it is a soverign country.
it was a reason given at the start, along with multiple other reasons. Unbeknownst to you, WMD's weren't the main reason, nor the ONLY reason, for going into Iraq, but you already knew that with your super-sleuth detective work.
The US are seen as the invading force, slaughtering innocent women and children and stealing the countrys natural resource.
I know what with all the partisan reporting we have over here I get shown what they want me to see, but they have been killing terrorists. Simply stating we are "slaughtering innocent women and children" is disingenuous. It is an attempt to paint the U.S. Military as indiscriminate killers, but you forgot a few of the colors in your paint-by-numbers scenario. You're giving a response meant to elicit emotional outrage - "women and children" - while erasing or omitting the fact that the terrorists, while most likely men, COULD in fact be women or children.
You're hiding behind "opinion" yet again when you state that the U.S. is "stealing the countrys natural resource." Are you hoping if you bang that gong loudly enough, you'll be listened to? I'm guessing you're referring to Oil, but please clear up exactly what you mean by "natural resource". And when clearing that up, it'd be nice to see some facts to back up your accusation, although I think you can't, so couched your charge in the vague "natural resource".
Remember...accusation....facts to back it up.
-
Well I tried, but I'll give up now. Either you are unable or just unwilling to understand my posts.
I just hope you at least will learn to think for yourself about things instead of just lapping up the propaganda. Try also to think why things happen as opposed to how much military it will take to "solve" the problem.
As long as we're speaking propoganda, I also hope the same thing for you. This "America bad, everyone else good" attitude is fine for you, but to act as if that isn't some propoganda foisted on people overlooks the good that the U.S. does worldwide for the sake of political views.
I'm not the one talking about good or bad. I'm only showing that the US is more to blame for it's own problems than anyone else where you seem intent on blaming just about anyone but your own government.
-
However, when France and a number of other countries threatened to use their vetos (as they were perfectly entitled to do) Bush cried foul and simply chose to ignore the UN altogether. This is a blatant example of double standards.
You've missed the most obvious example of the double standard.
It was cried about endlessly when the war first started that this was a war for oil. You may not remember it, as WMD's are the buzzword latched onto when "war for oil" was roundly ignored.
We didn't "steal the oil" in the first Gulf War, didn't steal it in THIS war, and the people using their vote (France, are you there?) claim some high moral ground while being involved in shady back-door dealings for what? Say it with me kiddies. OIL
Talk about a double standard ::) Funny, I don't hear the same outcry over France's dealings and the corruption involved within a few U.N. programs.
Is it now going to be the U.S. who is at fault for the U.N. corruption too?
The UN (flawed as it is) is the closest thing we have to international democracy. Without the UN we simply have the law of the jungle. It would be more constructive if America used its economic and political leverage to push for much needed reform of the UN instead of undermining it.
ECONOMIC LEVERAGE?!?!? GALLING! The U.S. needs to throw MORE money at that institution to fix it? Simply unbelievable. Perhaps France, what with their self-righteous indignation, is better suited to fix the problems, including financially.
Political leverage....maybe you haven't been keeping up with the replies of the people who AGREE with your views, but in their mind, the U.S. has gone to war with no support from any other country ::) so just WHO are we supposed to exert "political leverage" on?
Talk amongst yourselves....come up with an answer.
-
I'm not the one talking about good or bad.
I have to believe you've never CONSIDERED the good, as you WERE the one talking about the bad. You make apologies for France and Russia's actions while blaming the U.S. for the problems we "brought upon ourselves" You haven't talked about good. All you've seen fit to talk about is the bad.
I'm only showing that the US is more to blame for it's own problems than anyone else where you seem intent on blaming just about anyone but your own government.
I'm only showing that the U.S. is more to "blame" for offering assistance to help solve the problems of other countries than others. I'm not intent on blaming anyone else, I'm intent on making it clear that, as much as you have shown a willingness to blame the U.S. for everything from acting senselessly towards a hick doofus farmer turned dictator to chapped lips, that the U.S. makes decisions that positively affect other countries every year.
I'm intent on showing that the things wailed about endlessly if America had done them are no big deal if another country does it. I'm intent on showing the hypocrisy there, and it also serves to show that folks are going to be unhappy with what America does simply because - IT'S AMERICA - doing it. I see a blind eye towards the actions of other countries, while you offer justification for those countries.
I'm unwilling to throw the U.S. under the bus for that reason, and you seem perfectly willing to ignore any of those things for whatever reason.
I'm realistic with how the U.S. is percieved in the world. I know the good my country does, and I know that when trouble comes a-calling and someone wants some help, it is generally given, and in amounts that would stagger the average American if they knew the amounts. One might say (Cooter?) that it's an unequal participation in comparison to the rest of the world.
If the world didn't have the U.S. to hate, it WOULD be another country, because at some point, someone isn't happy with their lot in life, and looks for someone to affix blame to. I realize our freedoms and way of life are something other people wish they had in their own life, and don't see a way to obtain that. Enough time goes by, and bitterness sets in that they CAN'T get there (in their mind, at least). We soon end up being the evil Americans because we see no reason to shut our mouths when it comes to telling of the GOOD our country exemplifies.
I'm realistic enough to know we will never be given credit for the good we do, except by the people affected. The Iraqi's seem to "GET IT", even if you don't.
-
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!
-
People don't just get up in the morning and think "Hey lets kill myself in an attempt to hurt some americans".
whaddaya know, you're RIGHT! They DON'T just get up in the morning....they're trained, taught this in school, (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40967) THEN they get up one morning and give it the ol' college try.
Perhaps we should form a coalition with France, Russia, Germany, and China to stop this. We'll need Kerry to do this ::) but I'm sure if he becomes President, they'll print up new textbooks the next day....with our funding, of course ::)
I especially like this part, "I will even willingly fall as a Shahid [Martyr for Allah]." So I guess this just discounts my whole "they're religious nutjobs" theory
Oh, check this out! Lest Kofi get a pass as "impartial" while relatively few in the world focus on France's involvement in the Oil for Food program....mebbe his kid possibly being involved had something to do with his unwillingness to work with the U.S. this go-round. (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/32057.htm)
Here ya go, one more link to click. Why isn't there a cry for the U.N. to involve itself in Iraq's elections to the extent that they're being begged to stick their nose in the U.S. elections? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43378-2004Oct18?language=printer)
Ya know, Putin is just about the only guy I respect, as he seems to call 'em like he sees 'em. Why does HE think this election is important? (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041018/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_election_1)
-
I think you're confused with Kerry's Vietnam.
SLAM!!!
You SO just got OWNED Dexter.
Hoooooooweeeeeee!!! How could you even respond to that?
Kerry doesn't stand a chance with you around, Dartful.
p.s. Dexter....don't give. Fire back with a, "I know you are but what am I," and you'll be a contender again.
-
I think you're confused with Kerry's Vietnam.
SLAM!!!
You SO just got OWNED Dexter.
Hoooooooweeeeeee!!! How could you even respond to that?
Kerry doesn't stand a chance with you around, Dartful.
p.s. Dexter....don't give. Fire back with a, "I know you are but what am I," and you'll be a contender again.
Yep, seems the only way to debate on this forum is with cheap shots LOL. I keep forgetting the other Vietnam, the one Kerry raped and pillaged while the thief-in-chief carried childern from burning villages. Can you say 'swiftboat veteran'?
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?
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. It would have been political suicide for any country besides the US.
Fact
-
However, when France and a number of other countries threatened to use their vetos (as they were perfectly entitled to do) Bush cried foul and simply chose to ignore the UN altogether. This is a blatant example of double standards.
You've missed the most obvious example of the double standard.
It was cried about endlessly when the war first started that this was a war for oil. You may not remember it, as WMD's are the buzzword latched onto when "war for oil" was roundly ignored.
We didn't "steal the oil" in the first Gulf War, didn't steal it in THIS war, and the people using their vote (France, are you there?) claim some high moral ground while being involved in shady back-door dealings for what? Say it with me kiddies. OIL
Talk about a double standard ::) Funny, I don't hear the same outcry over France's dealings and the corruption involved within a few U.N. programs.
Is it now going to be the U.S. who is at fault for the U.N. corruption too?
The UN (flawed as it is) is the closest thing we have to international democracy. Without the UN we simply have the law of the jungle. It would be more constructive if America used its economic and political leverage to push for much needed reform of the UN instead of undermining it.
ECONOMIC LEVERAGE?!?!? GALLING! The U.S. needs to throw MORE money at that institution to fix it? Simply unbelievable. Perhaps France, what with their self-righteous indignation, is better suited to fix the problems, including financially.
Political leverage....maybe you haven't been keeping up with the replies of the people who AGREE with your views, but in their mind, the U.S. has gone to war with no support from any other country ::) so just WHO are we supposed to exert "political leverage" on?
Talk amongst yourselves....come up with an answer.
Ahh, I see you're using your usual sleigh of hand and going off on a tangent when you are unable to deal with an issue head on. The oil for food programme has nothing to do with the point I was making. But that you already know.
My point is that if Bush really has such contempt for the UN and considers it beyond reform, he should withdraw America from the organisation immediately and have nothing further to do with it. This is not a course of action I would support but at least it would be consistent and honourable.
Instead Bush tries to have his cake and eat it. When his attempt to bully and cajole the security council members into supporting his pro-war resolution failed, he decided to ignore the will of the UN and go to war anyway. If he didn't regard the UN's decision as binding then why did he attempt to get the resolution in the first place? Either the UN matters or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
I can understand the position of people who thought, on balance, going to war was the right thing to do. But what I can't understand is people who support the way that Bush and Blair went to war.
But going back to the point of this thread - If you give the UN the finger before going to war, you can't expact the UN to sort out the mess caused by the aftermath of the war.
-
But going back to the point of this thread - If you give the UN the finger before going to war, you can't expact the UN to sort out the mess caused by the aftermath of the war.
I agree, the US should just give the UN the finger and carry on, fighting the good fight.
-
My point is that if Bush really has such contempt for the UN and considers it beyond reform, he should withdraw America from the organisation immediately and have nothing further to do with it. This is not a course of action I would support but at least it would be consistent and honourable.
I agree that we should withdraw from it. Honor has nothing to do with it, I'd withdraw because it's getting more and more corrupt and doesn't mean squat when member nations work to circumvent the very sanctions enacted in order to reach their goal that no one seems to be decrying now...mebbe cuz it's not the evil Americans stealing the oil
Instead Bush tries to have his cake and eat it. When his attempt to bully and cajole the security council members into supporting his pro-war resolution failed, he decided to ignore the will of the UN and go to war anyway. If he didn't regard the UN's decision as binding then why did he attempt to get the resolution in the first place? Either the UN matters or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
It doesn't matter. Yet Bush followed the wishes of the elected representatives and went to the U.N. He followed the plan Kerry says he "would have done better". No member nation has supported Kerry's position, but they sure as heck have wanted to make sure they are on record saying they wouldn't take his help, no matter what.
Bush, however, has a backbone, and when the U.N.'s larger corrupted members saw fit to work against our goals because it would interfere with their scam, Bush decided waiting for four more years, and so on, and so on, just wasn't going to work. Bully for him, says I.
But going back to the point of this thread - If you give the UN the finger before going to war, you can't expact the UN to sort out the mess caused by the aftermath of the war.
And when the U.N. and its corrupt member nations decide to give the U.S. the finger by circumventing the sanctions they helped put in place all for oil, there should be a public outcry the likes we've never seen, and the U.S. should work to move in its interests since Sadaam could have had a nuke strapped to his back, riding a ballistic missile into the town square with large drums of mustard and sarin gas and France, Russia, China, and Mr Annan would NEVER have voted for a war that would have stopped their little scam.
-
when the U.N.'s larger corrupted members saw fit to work against our goals because it would interfere with their scam
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".
-
when the U.N.'s larger corrupted members saw fit to work against our goals because it would interfere with their scam
Gimme a break. America pulled the U.N. Resolution for military action in Iraq off the table after it became clear that we could not get A MAJORITY VOTE in the Security Council. It wasn't just one or two meddlesome permanent-veto-power countries frustrating our plans. Had it actually gone to vote and come out with a majority vote, perhaps France or Russia would have vetoed it, and then your claim might hold a little water.
But none of these countries had the need or even the opportunity to veto the resolution to go to war in Iraq because the Bush administration could not get a plurality of support and did not want to have the cloud of official U.N. disapproval of military action against Iraq hanging over their inevitable war. So the issue was never voted on.
-
Shmokes,
Was there a UN resolution for Clinton's invasion of Samola or Bosnia? NO.
These resolutions are a pile of paper. The issue didn't make it to the UN for vote because it was clear that a war declaration wasn't going to pass. Bush knew that.
But he had two things to argue in a court of law he had the right. 1) he had violations of the treaty with the US Saddam technically violated. 2) He had a prior resolution (where the inspectors just came back in) from the UN he used as a banner to go to war.
Bush wasn't going to lose face in the international community by going to war when France and Germany were going to say no. Germany was in the middle of a national election and France of course had interest in seeing Saddam in power.
Bush had the backing of the People of the US and all the lawful resolutions passed overwhelmingly in the congress. The UK was with us and we had alarming reasons to believe there was an growing threat from Saddam. If we hadn't found out he either got rid of most of his weapons to Syria, or he was bluffing, Kerry would be on a pulpit somewhere screaming that we should have removed Saddam when we had the chance. The rest of the world would be backing that madman today and by now he would be building WMD and it wouldn't be long before no one would be able to take him out without killing entire armies.
PatrickL, as for the UN scam, dude you have no clue. Google "oil for food scandal" and read a little. If you don't believe what's written there, then back up your words with facts from news or your own personal investigation. The Yanks will save the world, and your leftist socialist country along with it. Smoke another one and then maybe you can figure that out.
-
Small point - The recently completed report on WMDs in Iraq stated that any intention to obtain WMDs by Saddam was as a deterrent against Iran and they would have been of the short range variety. FACT. The allegations of an intent to strike the US have been proven to be fabrications. FACT. Most of the plantet knew this and wanted to give Blix the chance to prove it, which has now been proven by other parties anyway. A needless false war, waged under false pretences by a false President. 1100+ US troops dead, 8000+ injured, 30000+ Iraqis dead. The greatest recruitment tool for terrorists the world has known. Amazing how anything this administration touches turns to sh1t. Maybe thats why they lost the vote in the first place, the majority of the American publc knew the democrats could do a better job and voted for gore.
Hmm, I wonder what current ally of the US will be miracuously transformed into tomorrows madman/terrorist/enemy of freedom been hunted down for God and America. Rummy shaking hands with Saddam while he's using WMDs against the Iranians, the CIA training Osama to fight the Russians. Americas bedfellows turned evil because 'they hate us for our freedom'. Warning to all current allies of the US - as soon as you have outlived your usefulness watch your back.
It's amazing how something so unfunny can be laughable at the same time.
Dexter
-
PatrickL, as for the UN scam, dude you have no clue. Google "oil for food scandal" and read a little. If you don't believe what's written there, then back up your words with facts from news or your own personal investigation. The Yanks will save the world, and your leftist socialist country along with it. Smoke another one and then maybe you can figure that out.
I read about this "scandal" as Drew keeps pointing out on all these threads. He is just making too much out of this. The only thing I see in it that the US was jealous of the money French and Russian criminals were making and so they went to war, but I doubt that's the point he's trying to make.
If the Iraqis would have been more fond of the US they would have smuggled oil to US criminals too. Just like they bought most of their chemical weapons suplies from the US before.
-
Hmm, I wonder what current ally of the US will be miracuously transformed into tomorrows madman/terrorist/enemy of freedom been hunted down for God and America. Rummy shaking hands with Saddam while he's using WMDs against the Iranians, the CIA training Osama to fight the Russians. Americas bedfellows turned evil because 'they hate us for our freedom'. Warning to all current allies of the US - as soon as you have outlived your usefulness watch your back.
Could be the netherlands. We are a drug and child porn haven (sex at 16 years old is legal here) and we tolerate more illegal (i.e. terrorist) organizations here than any other country in europe.
Apparently the US actually has plans to forcefully liberate US war criminals if they might one day be convicted at the Hague international court.
-
If the Iraqis would have been more fond of the US they would have smuggled oil to US criminals too. Just like they bought most of their chemical weapons suplies from the US before.
Good point Patrickl. A little discussed dimension to this slaughter in Iraq is the Euro currency factor. The Euro has become a viable alternative to trading in dollars and middle eastern countries have been doing this with gusto to relieve dependence on the dollar, hence the strength of the Euro. Whoever controls the oil in Iraq gets to choose what currency to deal in, thats a big slice of american pie that naturally the puppet government in Iraq will buy with their blood money.
Dexter
-
I can tell both of you just don't get it. I can also tell you can't understand what was actually going on. For some reason you believe the US needs the oil.
FACT: The euro is 1.25 to 1 on the US dollar. The dollar remains the trading standard, sorry.
FACT: America is second only to Saudi Arabia in the amount of oil pumped. That's why even in this time of higher energy prices we pay 2.00 US to 4.00 US in Holland.
FACT: The US is jealous of no one. We are the world leader. We are the trade center of the free world. IF we fall, everybody's economy falls.
FACT: No Small Point, the main point - The UN has solved no conflicts and CAN be bribed at it's highest levels.
FACT: In no conflict of this size has so few civilians been killed. So Few lives lost , so quickly a force has overthrown another country. In other wars we have lost 60,000 people or more.
FACT: The Hague is as useless as the UN. How long has Malsoavic been on trial now? 6 years? Come on Boys. We take care of our own.
FACT: Hans Blix said in late 2002 that the report circulate likely understated the ability to create weapons by Saddam.
FACT: No one disputed that Saddam had WMD on the international level. Nor would they now if we had went in. We found these weapons are either gone, (very likely), or still buried, or never existed. But none the less, if the President had held back he would have missed the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past and remove this madman from power.
The US is fighting for the freedom of ourselves and free society all over the world. We are the model for most democracies in the world.
We cannot be held back because of past mistakes in foreign policy. Iran was a bigger threat to the US at the time than Iraq. Saddam hadn't been in power long enough to do all the evil we found he did.
Dexter, what's the alternative? Wait and see? Wait and see what the terrorists will do next and form some kind of international police force to round them up? Wait until they take over one of our schools and kill our children? What?
-
FACT: The euro is 1.25 to 1 on the US dollar. The dollar remains the trading standard, sorry.
Dear oh dear. WRONG, 1 Euro = 1.26 Dollars but this is irrelevent anyway. What is relevant is the relative performance of both currencies since the creation of the Euro. The euro is THE alternative as its growth has shown.
FACT: The US is jealous of no one. We are the world leader. We are the trade center of the free world. IF we fall, everybody's economy falls.
If the US sank into the sea tomorrow, the world would manage, just like the US coped post 9/11, lets not sugar coat this. One of the main reasons for the Euro is to create a transparent 'united states of europe' trading/commerce zone.
FACT: In no conflict of this size has so few civilians been killed. So Few lives lost , so quickly a force has overthrown another country. In other wars we have lost 60,000 people or more.
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. The conflict is far from over dispite Georgies little 'mission accomplished' photo op nearly a year and a half ago. Of course, its easy to pat your forces on the back for their low civillian death rates, not so easy if the dead civilians include your loved ones.
FACT: The Hague is as useless as the UN. How long has Malsoavic been on trial now? 6 years? Come on Boys. We take care of our own.
He is, however, on trial nonetheless, out of circulation and being tried by a legitimate court recognised by the civilised world. Will Saddams kangaroo court be viewed with the same authenticity??
FACT: Hans Blix said in late 2002 that the report circulate likely understated the ability to create weapons by Saddam.
That is why he wanted ample time to complete his work, to give an accurate assessment without the risk of understatement. But why let him do that when he may have given an answer that would have prevented a war that Bush and his cronies were determined to wage.
FACT: No one disputed that Saddam had WMD on the international level. Nor would they now if we had went in. We found these weapons are either gone, (very likely), or still buried, or never existed. But none the less, if the President had held back he would have missed the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past and remove this madman from power.
Lets conveniently forget as we always do the WMDs given by the US and UK. The UN respected the rule of international law and acknowledged that there was a correct way of doing things, but they wouldn't do as despite there being 'consequences' (Powells words), always great to see a bully being stood up to! Oh, and I'm sorry but 'correcting mistakes' was never one of the reasons given for war. There would have been no coalition if it was, as it now is, the only reason. As I stated previously, todays madman is often yesterdays bedfellow for the US.
The US is fighting for the freedom of ourselves and free society all over the world. We are the model for most democracies in the world.
Yes, because there are terrorist madmen plotting to take over MY country and destroy MY freedom. Don't think so, my people are liked, respected and welcomed all over the world, we are a neutral nation and famous for our friendliness and good humour. We also don't drop clusterbombs on civilian populations which helps. 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. America can't say the same.You're fighting for the mandate of the neoconservatives and the war machine cash cow, nothing more. So, kill innocents if it suits the agenda, BUT PLEASE DON'T DO IT IN MY NAME FOR MY FREEDOM because it's clearly not.
Dexter, what's the alternative? Wait and see? Wait and see what the terrorists will do next and form some kind of international police force to round them up? Wait until they take over one of our schools and kill our children? What?
Do you can think you can imprison and slaughter innocents without creating hatred? Hatred=Terrorist wannabes. Do you think you can kill a terrorist without creating a martyr and more terrorists? You cannot win the war on terror with force because you are fighting an idea based on vengeance, not a country,and cannot kill an idea with force of arms. The beginning of the end of the war on terror starts with America acknowledging its part in creating the hatred, making amends and showing those who would create the terror that it is no longer the enemy. Our schools, our children? No, my country has not committed atrocities against muslims, or have we troops in Iraq. So why would the terrorists strike here. Its a chicken and egg thing.
By the way, I am in no way anti-american, and long for the day when it is again seen as the custodian of liberty and justice.
Dexter
-
Dexter,
I understand now. No, this is EARTH, not mars.
No, 1 dollar is 1.25 euros, not the other way around. It's called the "exchange rate" look it up, google it, whatever.
If the US sank, the world economy would go into chaos. It did after 9/11. It would sink further. The world may manage, and the USA also, but not nearly where they were.
I do agree with "kangaroo court" and "Hague" in the same sentence. Saddam is pretty lucky he's alive this long. If Bush had his way they would have dug him out of that building at the beginining of the war and saved us all the trouble.
Hans Blix wanted ample time to draw more of a paycheck and get a few more camera angles.
The citizens of the US haven't been welcome for a long time overseas. Our money is. Always has been. But there are several issues the US fights for that the europeans don't like. I don't care really. If we are doing what we believe is the right thing, then who cares what bolivia thinks? Really, it's a non issue what France and Germany think. They didn't put any internal sanctions on us, did they? If they are so opposed to us ideologically, then they can boycott our products and refuse to ship things to us. They didn't do that, did they?
Dexter, if you believe we created this then you truly are from mars. There are lots of ways to react to the US, but whatever we did doesn't justify this reaction. You cannot put these terrorists on any kind of moral plane with the US.
Besides, you didn't answer the question. That's because you have no answer. It's easy to Criticize isn't it? You don't have to have an answer. Kerry doesn't have an answer, he just complains. I wouldn't have done this, I wouldn't have done that. He says he'd have a broader coalition.
Well, in the first gulf war we had a Broader coalition, we had a reason with national security in mind, and we had a UN resolution and he still didn't vote to go. So he's as credible as you. He has no answer. It's all what if's and hopes.
Bush had a plan and a vision. He did it in MY name, maybe not yours, but he did it for US.
-
No, 1 dollar is 1.25 euros, not the other way around. It's called the "exchange rate" look it up, google it, whatever.
Actually, the exchange rate at any given moment in time is utterly meaningless. The creators of the euro could initially have made 1euro=$0.10 or 1euro=$10.00. It's completely arbitrary.
What really matters is how currencies move in relation to one another over time.
Hans Blix wanted ample time to draw more of a paycheck and get a few more camera angles.
I think that's an unwarranted slur on a man you have almost certainly never met. Whatever your views on the inspection process, There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Hans Blix isn't a man of integrity.
-
Hmm, I wonder what current ally of the US will be miracuously transformed into tomorrows madman/terrorist/enemy of freedom been hunted down for God and America. Rummy shaking hands with Saddam while he's using WMDs against the Iranians, the CIA training Osama to fight the Russians. Americas bedfellows turned evil because 'they hate us for our freedom'. Warning to all current allies of the US - as soon as you have outlived your usefulness watch your back.
Indeed. There are some curious members of the 'coalition of the willing'. Take for instance Pakistan, a country which is essentially a dictatorship, in possesion of nuclear weapons (in violation of international treaties), and with a dubious human rights record. I wonder whether Musharraf will be tomorrow's bogeyman.
They say history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.
-
Is there ever a circumstance under which going to war is clear cut and not open to criticism? I'm sure there is, but I don't get the same feeling from others.
Try to answer it without telling me "sure, if we know they have WMD's and a broad coalition".
I'm looking for an instance under which a country would be right to act alone in its own self-interest against another country.
-
I can tell both of you just don't get it. I can also tell you can't understand what was actually going on.
I think we know perfectly well. But then we are not under the influence of the propaganda war. We can still think straight.
For some reason you believe the US needs the oil.
Who's talking about oil? The US is only interested in money. But then, OIL=money
FACT: The euro is 1.25 to 1 on the US dollar. The dollar remains the trading standard, sorry.
I don't understand what you are on about the exchange rate. It costs 1.25 dollars to buy 1 euro. Why is that a good thing for the dollar? The euro set out to be roughly the same value as the dollar. So far the euro has increased in value by 25%. The dolar is still the trading standard yes, but it is insanely quickly losing ground. You current president saw to that. His complete mismanagement of the US finances (the banks practically OWN the US) and the way everyone now hates your country and try to do as little business with them as possible (so people use the euro more and more) are seeing to that.
FACT: America is second only to Saudi Arabia in the amount of oil pumped. That's why even in this time of higher energy prices we pay 2.00 US to 4.00 US in Holland.
We actually pay the same amount for the gas over here, but then we pay taxes. Over here we have the idea that the polluter pays. So if people use more energy they have to help clean up their mess. In the US the polluter simply pollutes and the future generations (or the rest of the world) can deal with your filth. The US squanders half of the worlds resources used annually. If there is one thing you are big in then it's in asocial behavior.
FACT: The US is jealous of no one. We are the world leader. We are the trade center of the free world. IF we fall, everybody's economy falls.
I think you are overestimating your countries worth. I'd say China is more important already (or will be shortly), but europe combined is another block, for that matter Asia is. If you look at one country, yes, there aren't that many big countries, but economically that's not so much an issue.
Besides, my point was not so much about jealousnes, but more about greed. The greedy friends of GW, Cheney and Rumsfeld want to make ever more money.
FACT: No Small Point, the main point - The UN has solved no conflicts and CAN be bribed at it's highest levels.
It has solved plenty conflicts. They just have no army of themselves. In fact I cannot think of a conflict that was solved that did not have the UN involved. The US started GWII without the UN, but now they come begging back for help.
US officials can be bribed at the highest levels (Dick Cheney took $21 million).
FACT: In no conflict of this size has so few civilians been killed. So Few lives lost , so quickly a force has overthrown another country. In other wars we have lost 60,000 people or more.
And? We're talking about the 1000 american soldiers that could have been prevented from dying had Bush better prepared the war. He created a terrorist haven and his army (and ours) suffered the consequences. Of course the war went pretty smoothly, but that bit after that didn't go according to plan (if there indeed was a plan)
FACT: The Hague is as useless as the UN. How long has Malsoavic been on trial now? 6 years? Come on Boys. We take care of our own.
It takes a while to do a trial properly. With properly I don't mean like that OJ Simpson farce, but a real trial (with no jury, but only professionals).
FACT: Hans Blix said in late 2002 that the report circulate likely understated the ability to create weapons by Saddam.
Yes so? What's important is that just before the war he stated that he didnt think WMD where in Iraq.
He was sent in by the US to go check several places and he found nothing. The US claimed they knew where the WMD were before they went to war, Hans Blix went to look and there was nothing there. Then the US claimed that Saddam must have quickly moved the stuff since it had to be there. Ehm yeah sure.
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.
FACT: No one disputed that Saddam had WMD on the international level. Nor would they now if we had went in. We found these weapons are either gone, (very likely), or still buried, or never existed. But none the less, if the President had held back he would have missed the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past and remove this madman from power.
In fact every nation but the US stated that the WMD where not an issue. Especially after Hans Blix demonstrated there were none where the US said they would be. Did you ever see anything about the UN resolutions leading up to this war?
The US is fighting for the freedom of ourselves and free society all over the world. We are the model for most democracies in the world.
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)
The last item is spun into "Saving freedom for the world", but in fact it's just as useful as kicking your neighbour in the nuts.
We cannot be held back because of past mistakes in foreign policy. Iran was a bigger threat to the US at the time than Iraq. Saddam hadn't been in power long enough to do all the evil we found he did.
Iran was indeed another instance where the US ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up. Does the pattern become a bit clearer perhaps?
US meddles -> trouble comes -> US is in bigger mess
Dexter, what's the alternative? Wait and see? Wait and see what the terrorists will do next and form some kind of international police force to round them up? Wait until they take over one of our schools and kill our children? What?
Fredster indeed what planet do you live on. The only thing threatening your schoolchildren is the loose weapons you have lying around over you country. How many children die from that annually? It's actually more than in the Beslan siege.
-
Dexter,
No, 1 dollar is 1.25 euros, not the other way around. It's called the "exchange rate" look it up, google it, whatever.
Hate to dwell on a point:
FXConverter - 164 Currency Converter Results
Friday, October 22, 2004
1 US Dollar = 0.79258 Euro
1 Euro (EUR) = 1.26170 US Dollar (USD)
Median price = 0.79252 / 0.79258 (bid/ask)
Minimum price = 0.79020 / 0.79045
Maximum price = 0.79536 / 0.79554
I don't google for conversions, I use the real thing as I frequently need accurate conversions done. You should try the following -
www.xe.com/ucc
http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic
Its called the "correct exchange rate", look it up, don't google it, whenever ;)
Any way, as I said, what is relevant is the relative performance of both currencies since the creation of the Euro. The Euro has gone from strength to strength thanks to 4 years of Republican 'leadership'.
The citizens of the US haven't been welcome for a long time overseas.
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.
Really, it's a non issue what France and Germany think.
Ah yes, thats the attitude that has caused Iraqnam to become the biggest error of foreign policy in the history of your country. It won't be a non-issue if terrorists strike your country having organised in France and not been monitored properly, the 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' being as apathethic towards you as you are towards them.
Dexter, if you believe we created this then you truly are from mars. There are lots of ways to react to the US, but whatever we did doesn't justify this reaction. You cannot put these terrorists on any kind of moral plane with the US.
Lest we forget the victims of 9/11: September 11, 2001 - Terrorists strike the twin towers, 3000 dead. September 11, 1973 - "Project FUBELT"--the codename for C.I.A. covert operations to promote the military coup by General Pinochet in Chile, 3000 chilean civilians dead and the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende removed with US blessing. Still the good guys? What was that about "We are the model for most democracies in the world" again??
US interference in other countries affairs is a big part of what has created the hatred in the muslim world. Bin laden stated three reasons for 9/11, hating your freedom was not one of them. Fully understanding all sides of the arguement will be the beginning of the victory in the war on terror. Isolating yourselves and levelling populated areas wil not.
Dexter
-
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* (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_8.html)
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 ::)
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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* (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_8.html)
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.
-
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 :o 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..... ::)
-
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. (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_8.html) 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.
-
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 :o 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
-
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".
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
*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. (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_8.html)
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? :P
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.
-
"...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".
-
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.
-
Guys - tone down the tag line images please. If they could be slightly less than half my available screen I'd be happy :)
--- saint
-
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.
-
You gotta stop surfing the 'net from your mame machine ;)
How'd I do?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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).
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.