Would you vote for Bush again?

**dP munky** · 03-11-2003

Originally posted by OneStiffRod
Maybe the UN should ask RUSSIA, CHINA, or FRANCE - the other permanent members to belly up and start commiting forces, money, and a GODDAMN backbone to support UN actions... Oh, wait none of these countries do a damn thing - they sit back and let the US take the lead and take on the debt to help the world. Maybe the US should become like these other members and do the absolute minimum - I hope we do as we DONT need the UN. U might try to argue that FRANCE does commit peace keepers to the UN but so does a host of other countries including PAKISTAN and ANGOLA as well as others - so it aint much, especially for a permanent member.

he's blunt but he's got a point! i agree w/him, the US enforces a lot around the world, we commit forces on almost every international event, were like the freaking police...and more and more we're having to take the "beats" in the bad neighborhoods

**novacain** · 03-11-2003

The US only footed 10% of the cost of Desert Storm.

http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/iraq.htm

Iraq (supposedly) will have to pay back the cost of this war out of its future earnings.

>> ASK the PPL of Africa nations if they appreciate the UN when it says that they must not use ENGINEERED CROPS b/c the UN hasn't decided on whether it's a good thing since environmentalists have UNDUE influence over this part of UN policy.

Ask them if they like the US and Europes Farming subsidies and restrictive trade practices guaranteed to keep them poor.

A simple example;
The United States has 193,000 fishermen, but only 1,000 people employed in manufacturing fishnets.
Yet a 17 percent tariff on fishnets subsidizes the 1,000 people who make them while raising the costs for the 193,000 fishermen who use them to compete every day with foreign rivals.

Then ask WHO makes the untested GM crops.

Ever read 'Death of grass'? Image that non GM crops of the same type breed and pick up the GM crops killer gene. What would happen?

The crops are 'built' with a gene that kills the second generation so the farmer has to buy seed each year instead of retaining part of his crop (ie increased costs). The company is Monsanto a US company.

**Clyde** · 03-11-2003

"ASK the PPL of Africa nations if they appreciate the UN when it says that they must not use ENGINEERED CROPS b/c the UN hasn't decided on whether it's a good thing since environmentalists have UNDUE influence over this part of UN policy"

There are valid concerns over geneticly modified crops, the ecological ramifications of the spread of genes from crops to the surrounding environment is far from clear. This is compounded by the social issues involved; since GM crops are deliberately made sterile populations that use them become dependent on the company that supplies them, it is very easy to invisage a scenario where by the people end up much worse off being forced to continually pay for new crops where they would have previously effectively got them for free.

The UN is merely waiting so it can make an informed decision rather than making a rash one.

When altering enviromental factors caution is to be advised, heard of the cane toad?

**itld** · 03-11-2003

howdy,

the other permanent members to belly up and start commiting forces, money, and a GODDAMN backbone to support UN actions

this is really what this is all about, they don't want to take the chance that someone might say they were wrong, but when occupation and government change take place and are proven to be positive they will all pat themselves on the back and brag about how effective they are.

M.R.

**Govtcheez** · 03-11-2003

> the CHANCE that someone MIGHT

Slow down, howdy - we don't need anymore random capitaliZATION!

Oh, crap - it's spreading.

**itld** · 03-11-2003

howdy,
sorry, i fixed it.

M.R.

**dP munky** · 03-11-2003

>>The US only footed 10% of the cost of Desert Storm
and...?....what was the percentage of troops that were U.S were in the region? i know that only (aprox.) 140 people were killed in the gulf war, but it was 140 of our boys that shouldnt have, SH is a menace to the region, he's like the political version of OBL yet all the code pink people out there wanna give him a great big hug

**Yawgmoth** · 03-11-2003

Originally posted by Clyde

The UN is merely waiting so it can make an informed decision rather than making a rash one.

HELLO!! We've had 10+ yrs. of Saddam Hussein being a dick and totally violating his treaties, only to kinda, sorta, maybe, temporarily comply at the last minute, only to start violating the treaties 6 months later. It's obvious that we should stop taking his crap and go in and kick his butt. BTW, he has killed a bunch of people in his country, usually for no good reason. If an ordinary U.S. citizen( or any citizen of a civilized country) did that, they would be locked up for life. So why is Saddam Hussein getting away w/murder?

When altering enviromental factors caution is to be advised, heard of the cane toad?

No. Please explain.

Unregd · 03-11-2003

As this war has become a near certainty with March 17, St. Patrick's Day, being a date I heard thrown out on television, the debate should shift more to how Iraq will be occupied after Saddam Hussein and his supporters have been ousted. Military occupation is a terrible thing, but if President Bush is going to do it, someone should be making sure he does not make a complete mess of it.

1. The citizens of the United States should demand that, after the U.S. has removed and destroyed all weapons of mass destruction and broken up any terrorist rings operating within Iraq, a return to Iraqi self-determination should be made. This involves the Iraqi people freely and democratically calling up a constitutional convention to form a government that would act responsibly to the world community by dealing with militant terrorist organizations appropriately and that would ensure the civil and human rights of religious and ethnic minorities in the country, ideally.

2. The citizens of the United States should demand Congress and the Bush administration that any kind of war reparations are not a part of the post-war deal. Having post-war Iraq repay the war debt amassed by the United States, the UK, etc. will only secure the U.S. oil industry's firm control of Iraq's natural resources. This should be no problem because the war is about peace and stability, not oil, right, Mister President?

3. The citizens of the United States should demand that the U.S. government and military do not interfere in the peaceful and independent development of a new democratic political environment in Iraq. That is, the U.S. should not silence opposition parties that oppose a lengthy occupation of the country.

4. The citizens of the United States should demand that Iraq does not become an American colony. This would require post-war Iraq's development of an independent economic and trade policy that does not specifically favor the U.S. and its war allies.

War is something I rather avoid. Unfortunately, it seems like the United Nations cannot prevent it. Because of this, the less imperialistically inclined should clamor that my four points be made; this way at least, the war will not be for nothing.

***ClownPimp*** · 03-11-2003

>HELLO!! We've had 10+ yrs. of Saddam Hussein... [snip]

LOL, you might want to read his entire post before you respond. His post had nothing to do with Saddam

>and...?....what was the percentage of troops... [snip]

lol, dp, you have a bad habit of missing the point of things :P

**dP munky** · 03-11-2003

>>LOL, you might want to read his entire post before you respond. His post had nothing to do with Saddam

actually the entire post was about saddam, some people just dont like the truth, by that i mean the whole ... "violating his treaties, only to kinda, sorta, maybe, temporarily comply at the last minute, only to start violating the treaties 6 months later" part

>>you have a bad habit of missing the point of things
i got the point, i just had a further inquirey and of course....overlooked

is it just me or are people throwing lower and lower blows??!

***ClownPimp*** · 03-12-2003

Firstly, I was posting in response to Yawgmoth who was posting in response to Clyde. Clyde's post had nothing to do with saddam or Iraq. It was obvious he just read the last couple of lines and assumed it was about Saddam. It was about the UN and genetically modified crops.

Secondly, can't you take a joke : /

**dP munky** · 03-12-2003

>>Secondly, can't you take a joke : /

::clears throat:: ha ha

i mean look at the monkey, look at him, look at that big cheese smile!! of course i can take a joke!

Unregd · 03-12-2003

Watching the news yesterday, I heard about a new conventional bomb developed by the United States and tested in Florida. It is so powerful, in fact it is the most powerful nonnuclear bomb in the world, that it creates a mushroom cloud and can be heard and seen from miles away. Now President Bush wants to point this weapon of mass destruction squarely at the Iraqi people in the form of their army. Yes, I know; they would be the opposition in the war; but I'm sure Saddam has some kind of threat thereby coercing them to join his army. If this bomb is used, I don't think it will be ensuring minimal loss of life.

There is still a slight glimmer of hope for peace. Saddam Hussein may finally realize he's doomed if he leaves and even more doomed if he stays so he might for once consider the lives of his subjects in a nonviolent way. Enough wishful thinking though.

**dP munky** · 03-12-2003

i was watching the news yesterday and they were showing some new bomb in development that when it detonates, it doesnt explode ... well not in the conventional sense, it explodes w/200 billion watts of electicity basically short circuting EVERYTHING in the blast radius...it wouldnt stop small arms fire obviously, but guided missles and radar would be useless