Even if you did not vote in the past elections..........I was wondering if you'd be willing to vote for him.......Please I don't want this to turn into a flame war......yes answer "yes" or "no" or "not sure". Educated comments are welcomed.
Printable View
Even if you did not vote in the past elections..........I was wondering if you'd be willing to vote for him.......Please I don't want this to turn into a flame war......yes answer "yes" or "no" or "not sure". Educated comments are welcomed.
The reason why I ask this, is because I want to know how if any this current possibility of a war has changed the minds of people towards having Bush as a president.
Sure- I'd love to have more bush!
Oh, you meant the president. Nope - didn't vote for him last time, don't plan on voting for him again.
Thankfully we dont have to worry about Bush, just his lapdog Tony Blair (our Prime Minister)!
>>Please I don't want this to turn into a flame war<<
What are the odds?
Anyway, are we non-americans allowed to vote based on the (probably limited and maybe biased) information we were able to obtain at the time of the elections?
> vote based on the (probably limited and maybe biased) information
You've got just as much info as the rest of us do, then. I'd say vote away, but it's chulo's thread. It's not like he can really stop you.
> Please I don't want this to turn into a flame war......
Sweet, sweet innocent chulo.
Not allowed to vote, but if I could, I would vote against him, just like last election.
>You've got just as much info as the rest of us do, then.
Sweet!:D
I wouldn't vote for him (as I wouldn't've in 2000, either). This doesn't mean I don't support what he's doing.
Voted for him the first time and plan on doing it again if they try to put someone with the quality level of Gore up against him again.
I prayed to the Lord when Gore conceded... I can't imagine any new thought coming from him. However, there are plenty of good democratic canidates out there, imho, so the choice is made better.Quote:
Originally posted by ober5861
again if they try to put someone with the quality level of Gore up against him again.
I definitely will not be voting for George W. Bush in 2004. If the Democrats fail to bring forth a candidate worthy of my vote, I will have to turn to a third party out of frustration. The whole Bush mentality is what gets me most: His hegemonic (imperialist who forgets that all empires fall), pro-big-business (corporate welfare), antiregulation (fewer regulations for public monopolies), trickle-down-theory (his tax cut, especially when the budget is in deficit), anti-religious-diversity (anti-atheist, markedly pro-Christian) attitude is what I really hate about his policies and decisions.
If the Democrats think that agreeing with President Bush and the Republicans on everything they know is not right for the United States and the world is going to win them votes, they are absolutely incorrect. I want a government that can come to some sort of consensus with our allies and curb the aspirations of genocidal, war-threatening regimes (I almost forgot that includes the U.S. at one time) without resorting to all-out war. I want a government that will not determine what religious beliefs I should follow when using the nation's currency or pledging allegiance to the country. I do not want a Democratic candidate who has morphed into some moral conservative Republican, restricting everything in the name of the children. Above all, I do not want to lose the traditional liberties in exchange for some false sense of security; I do not feel comfortable with the government using torture, denial of due process, revocation of citizenship, etc. on suspected terrorists if it means I or anyone else could randomly be accused and locked away somewhere. Honestly, I fear for the future of our country more from what the Republicans are doing in reaction to terrorism than what the terrorists have done or may do in the future.
Please PM me your home address. I'll personally help you pack your stuff and I'll provide a plane/truck/bus/catapult to help you move it and your ass out of the country.
i have no clue what i'll do next year, i dont think bush is a bad president, trigger happy maybe, but even thats debateable, i really wish that john mccain would run, he was doin good in 2000 but bush had more money and was able to go longer and in the end got the party nomination. I'd definately vote for mccain but i dont think there's a good chance of him running... otherwise you cant vote republican because their rich money grubbing $$$$$s, and democrats are way to far out there to be of any help, you hear of "right-wing" and "liberals" but how come there arent any centeralists? ya know someone who isnt extreme anything, that has shared beliefs from all over? thats the guy who'd get my vote, but i dont think there's been anyone like that .....well....ever
>>I fear for the future of our country more from what the Republicans are doing in reaction to terrorism than what the terrorists have done or may do in the future.
i couldnt agree w/this guy more, on sept. 10th we still had many MANY freedoms that we dont now because of the police state, Im not comfortable w/the fact that the fbi could come into my house right.....now....and throw me in jail, not tell me why im there, etc. (patriot act of 2001) we've been losing our freedoms ever since "political correctness" took off and then when september 11 came we lost so much more
bush ! ... I'd like to sew his ass.
Quote:
Originally posted by minesweeper
>>Please I don't want this to turn into a flame war<<
What are the odds?
Anyway, are we non-americans allowed to vote based on the (probably limited and maybe biased) information we were able to obtain at the time of the elections?
Yeah I just want the people's opinion........
>>>>You've got just as much info as the rest of us do, then. I'd say vote away, but it's chulo's thread. It's not like he can really stop you.
This is also true :)
I am not neither a Democrat nor Republican, I just believe in "voting for the right guy at the right time" if you can say that. Example when Bush won I was so furious, I wanted Gore to win so bad back then I was yet of legal voting age. After a while I kind of started liking Bush as a President and it came to a point where I believed that if elections were to be held at that point in time I would vote for Bush instead of Gore. I feel that Bush handled the 911 crisis well. I have just started to have my doubts about him and all this war effort all of the sudden. You hear people saying so much that "it's a petroleum war", that it just sort of makes you think.
do we have a lot of lefties on this board? hmm.. you tell me.
I voted for him once, and i probably will again.
>people saying so much that "it's a petroleum war", that it just sort of makes you think.
its all propaganda, DONT BUY INTO IT, i will ask you two(now three) questions to settle your mind, and i'll give you some of the answers(there are many more) as well... if you don't believe me look it up.
1. Why didn't we keep the oil in the first gulf war?
A: you figure it out, i like to let the "America wants Iraq's oil" spouters choke on this one them selves.
2. What is France's main interest in no war?
A: OIL!! how ironic...
A: there economy is got take a beating.
A: they have been helping Iraq, and want to keep it quiet.
3. here's another actually, whats russias interest?
A: 8 billion+ in money owed by iraq.
A: they also have been aiding Iraq, and want it kept quiet.
and lastly read my sig.
Don't start a flame war, im just calming elchulo's, qualms.
to any who would flame, do yourself a favor, and research first,
besides that i won't reply to flames.
>>"dont start a flame war"
this is a debate :), a group of intelligent individuals discussing current events nothing more
...when it gets outta hand THATs the flame war ex.) youre dumb because youre a big fat poopie head...
>>A: 8 billion+ in money owed by iraq.
>>A: they also have been aiding Iraq, and want it kept quiet.
dont forget, we helped iraq too, some of the chemical weapons they have are curtosy of the good ol' usa (during the iran iraq conflict in the 80's)
>>"...defeated Communism and fascism..."
not on the home front we havent, fascism at least, just look at the neo nazi terrorist organizations in this country that are protected by "free speech"
>A: you figure it out, i like to let the "America wants Iraq's oil" spouters choke on this one them selves
[edit] just letting you know I dont fully believe this war is about oil, im just responding for the sake of argument. Although i do believe there is some ulterior motive that we dont know about... [/edit]
Ill give it a shot. Bush Sr. was in office (I think), maybe he didnt believe oil was worth war. Remember, we didnt go into Iraq looking for war then, we were protecting Kuwait.
Perhaps Bush Sr. wasnt as closely tied to oil as GW is.
Times are different now. We see that our dependence on foreign sources of oil is a serious threat to our well-being and this is an attempt to reduce our dependence.
>I prayed to the Lord when Gore conceded... I can't imagine any new thought coming from him
LOL. and you can imaging one coming from Bush? Perhaps you dont know Gore very well, he is a very intelligent man. Bush on the other hand...
>>>>.....he is a very intelligent man. Bush on the other hand...
Yeah he invented the internet :) j/k !!!! Sorry I couldn't let it go by hehehehe
You're right though, he is very intelligent. (seriously). I initally wanted him to win the elections.
I have trouble expressing myself like a normal human being.
LightingStrike
no-one could you post some links / info on France and Russian aid to Iraq that "they have been helping Iraq, and want to keep it quiet."
"it's a petroleum war"
More a currency war ie US$ v Euro
>>1. Why didn't we keep the oil in the first gulf war?
You do buy most of the amount that Iraq can sell under the UN sanctions. Iraq is the US's 6th biggest supplier or the same amount as could be drilled from the pristine wilderness in Alaska (but only for 40 years).
Main destinations Iraq of exports 2000(d) % of total
US 46.2 (or over 775,000 barrels a day)
Italy 12.2
France 9.6
Spain 8.6
Main origins of Iraq imports 2000(d) % of total
France 22.5
Australia 22 (wheat for oil)
China 5.8
Russia 5.8
howdy,
yes i would.
it's nice to have someone with some balls in the White House.
M.R.
Blah Blah Blah, I see some fools are trying to turn this into a flame war. (novacain)
But to get to the point, that I never voted at all and wouldn't have voted for BUSH if I did... but I think he's a good prez now but he's slow and lacks foresight in the domestic front - I LUV his foreign policy tho and am a big fan of it.
I would not vote for him again and I don't think it's right to ask this question over the pre-text of war - as I believe we would be confronting saddam now or in a year or 2 even if we had a Democrat as prez - as this issue must be resolved. Former Prez Clinton supports the pressure on saddam and agrees that it's time to confront him, but he regrets that we aren't able to get a coalition together. As u see it doesn't matter the party whose in power, this war is and has been in the cards for a long time.
I would vote for someone who has a better grasp of domestic policy, who knows about finance and economics, who will begin pushing and funding alternative energy fuelz, and who will KEEP kicking ass at foreign diplomacy just like BUSH.
I generally see myself as independent and not of either party but I see the most promise in a Democrat called "Gen. Wesley Clark" he's a former NATO general and commander in the KOSOVO war. And guess what all u pansiez - he'd be kicking saddam's ass just the same.
I did respond, but im gonna let these words stand as the final ones.
my final words on this... on all of this... because im tired of the lies and and the bull$$$$, so tired i don't care anymore. Be stupid, don't think for yourselves, buy into what ever they tell you, and believe it with all your heart cause thats all you've got left.
secondly, i will end saying this,
We'll see what happens, read my sig again, and think about it. its the honest truth, nothing more nothing less, what has changed, nothing, but your desire to see us(the U.S.) fail,for us(the U.S.) to be wrong to be evil to be what you want it to be so badly you can taste it, so you don't like us, so you'd love to see saddam wipe the desert clean with all our troops to smite us and run us into the ground, fine, you keep that attitude, cause someday maybe the next time we won't help, maybe next time we won't come to your aid when you need it, maybe next time we won't be there to take out the next world threat that comes along, then we'll see who the real evil was and is, then we'll see what all these "theories and ideals" come to.
Till then shut-up you have no idea what damage your doing with your flat out wrong ideals and your wild conspiracy theory's, propaganda, and flat out lies. It maybe be to late, but when you see the damage you've done the damage your still doing, when its full weight is on you, you'll beg for someone like Bush who has the backbone and the will, the flat out gumption to act.
do yourself, and all the world a favor, and just shut-up.
My sig incase i ever change it:
"Far from being the great Satan, I would say we are the great protector. The United States rebuilt Europe and Japan after World War II, defeated Communism and fascism and the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead."
- Colin Powell, US Secretary of State.
I don't think I would vote for him If I even did vote. I'm not a very political person, hell I don't even watch the news. However the simple fact that the US is near the point of war is not something that I find appealing. Wether war can be prevented or not I can't say because I don't know all the facts. I do hold the president responsible for this "fear" that he is creating in the American People and of course if a war started, it would be his fault.
>>buy into what ever they tell you, and believe it with all your heart cause thats all you've got left.
(this isnt a flame war)there are more than 1 ways to sort a problem out. i agree w/you there are a lot of "bush is out for oil" crapola out there, but you just have to realize that theyre misinformed...or have a different solution to the problem
>as I believe we would be confronting saddam now or in a year or 2 even if we had a Democrat as prez
I am starting to believe that this would be the case. I am all for ridding the world of someone like Saddam. But I dont believe that this is the only reason Bush wants war with Saddam. If it were, he would be much more patient with UN and all the nations that oppose war. Saddam is not an immediate threat to the US (if im wrong, tell me how), so I dont see the problem in making sure there is international consensus before going to war. Going it alone just means we have to bear the full cost of war (as if it would be different any other way) and it makes the US look bad.
If this war is not primarily about oil (oil is certainly a consideration as is almost any policy dealing with the Middle East--this goes for the United States, Russia, France, and any other country), President Bush has not been very clear on what exactly it is about other than a vague reference to a possible future threat and presumed connection with today's terrorist organizations, so I think it can only be expected that followers of the far left and anti-Americans worldwide would come to their own conclusions.
To many President Bush looks hypocritical for talking about a war to liberate the Iraqi peoples (Europe drew the map of the Middle East after World War I so it should not be expected to be a good fit) and alleviate the threat of possible weapons of mass destruction (I hate that long phrase) when the president continues to work with other dictators and governments that do not acknowledge most of the human rights and liberties of their citizens.
Furthermore, the president has continued to ignore the much more immediate threat of North Korea. North Korea, from external observation, had finally begun getting along with its neighbors when President Bush infuriated the unpredictable leadership there with his infamous Axis of Evil speech. North Korea is known to posess nuclear capibility and has one of the larging standing armies in the world. The greater threat to the common good of the world, including the United States, is North Korea; and I am afraid that progress with North Korea will not be possible during the rest of Bush's presidency.
Going back to Iraq, a war against Saddam Hussein's government will not achieve President Bush's only stated objective: to prevent further terrorism against the United States. In all likelihood, this war will feed a resurgence of violence and hatred against Americans and the United States in the Islamic community.
It is not that I want to see my country be destroyed--not at all--it's just that President Bush's lack of tact since day one has alienated allies and ruined any chance for a peaceful solution to the Iraq problem. The conservatives here may find my opinion repulsive, but I think it is the unwavering supporters of President Bush who need to decide whether they have been blindly following propaganda or not.
----
As for political moderates, the American political process tends to keep them out. The big two parties will not give much campaign support to a renegade party member, and at primaries and caucuses the candidates must shift left or right to win the party hardliners and special interests who tend to turn out for such things. Of course, as seen in 2000, the general elections require a shift back to the center even if it is only a façade, as in the case of President Bush.
howdy,
Vague References???Quote:
President Bush has not been very clear on what exactly it is about other than a vague reference to a possible future threat and presumed connection with today's terrorist organizations
your kidding, right???
M.R.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20020912.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...380889,00.html
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020916-28573872.htm
RESOLUTION ON IRAQ (1441)
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/iraq/unscr1441.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...s/satindex.htm
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=2231238
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002994
"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
-President Bill Clinton in 1998
It's interesting you brought up Bill Clinton. I think we all know why he decided to bomb Iraq, and oil definitely was not the top concern.
I am satisfied with stepping up weapons inspections in Iraq--for now.
Speaking of terrorist supporting, repressive regimes, what about Saudi Arabia? We'd be after them too if it weren't for the very same Saudi oil princes who support terrorism negotiating bargains with American oil companies.
How many decades should we allow for Iraq to comply with 1441?
with some of these people 1 wasnt enough, he probably needs a few more, i dunno, it just seems to me that the guy is hiding something. he's made no attempt, none, zero, nada, nilch, zip, zippo, uh-uh to comply w/the resolution. i cant believe some people just wanna let this go by w/nothing, "lets keep inspecting" thats like taking one guy from belgium placing him in the us and saying, find this guys lucky sock...???
I think allowing a few more months or whatever for inspections for the sake of having the backing of the UN is worth it. Iraq is not an _immediate_ threat us or anyone for that matter (if he were to try and attack one of his neighbors right now, that would be the impetus for war)
howdy,
at this point UN backing is probably impossible and for the most part meaningless.Quote:
having the backing of the UN
M.R.
The UN represents the international community and having the backing of the international community is very meaningful. I am alarmed at the growing anti-Americanism in countries that are our strongest allies. The US would be foolish not to address that, and the US taking unilateral action against Iraq will just fuel the fire.
howdy,
unilateral suggests we would go it alone, as far as i know we have several other countries in agreement with us. and only a few disagree with us.Quote:
and the US taking unilateral action against Iraq will just fuel the fire
M.R.
If you read the links you would see that we are supported by others. If we need to have EVERYONE agree on every matter we would never accomplish anything!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...380889,00.html
If i was President Bush's secratery i would do as fallows...
1. Change His current war plans and plans to propose to the UN to Blow up Iraq and put a missle thru osma bin ladne and saddam husanes head.
2. Vote for bush till he dies, even if he isnt on the ballow, that will make florida recount more :)
No allowed to vote for US President,
But if allowed, Vote would go for "No" .
Even for both Bush.
I know very little about US internal Politics but because of Last US President, I found little idea on Republicans and Democrats. Their attitude.
I'm not sure if i'm right, republicans love war more than democrats.
howdy,
neither LOVE war.Quote:
I'm not sure if i'm right, republicans love war more than democrats.
M.R.
ok, unilateral wasnt accurate. But, without the UN, our actions against Iraq will lose credibility in the eyes of those who oppose it. It will seem like Bush just has something personal against saddam or some ulterior motive for wanting war so badly. The best thing we can do is to keep working through the UN and also keep giving the inspectors intelligence so they might be able to expose beyond any doubt any Iraqi deception.
howdy,
IMO the inspectors have proven many violations of Res 1441. the existance of the "forgotten" chemical war heads, the existance of the buried long range missles, the purchase of the precsion aluminum tubing, the inspectors have to LOOK for roof instead of being PROVIDED proof of the destruction of weapons.Quote:
they might be able to expose beyond any doubt any Iraqi deception.
Sadam is a very clever man whom at this point is playing the UN like a fiddle, he (Sadam) needs to end this threat of war by complying with res 1441 and other UN Resolutions.
M.R.
I think that after a while you just get tired of his little games. I mean it's not like this is the first time, we have this type of problem with the guy.
> I think that after a while you just get tired of his little games. I mean it's not like this is the first time, we have this type of problem with the guy
thats very true, but besides the point. It will be much to our advantage to have the backing of the UN before any action in Iraq, if only to give legitimacy to the war and to any government that will replace him. If we dont have UN approval, it will just seem like more American arrogance and forcefulness at work. There is no reason not to wait for UN approval, it will happen eventually.
Quote:
Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
> I think that after a while you just get tired of his little games. I mean it's not like this is the first time, we have this type of problem with the guy
thats very true, but besides the point. It will be much to our advantage to have the backing of the UN before any action in Iraq, if only to give legitimacy to the war and to any government that will replace him. If we dont have UN approval, it will just seem like more American arrogance and forcefulness at work. There is no reason not to wait for UN approval, it will happen eventually.
Very true............but how long will we have to wait for UN approval?
It is true that some countries' governments support President Bush's war plan, but popular support in these countries is weak. British prime minister Tony Blair wanted to propose a resolution giving Saddam more time to comply because of popular opinion in Britain having turned strongly against him. Members of the opposition party in Parliament were more supportive than many members of Prime Minister Blair's own Labour Party.
Saddam Hussein losing power would be a good thing--if done right. The United States' real or perceived imperialism fuels the rhetoric of anti-American terrorist groups, and a war with Iraq will only add substance to their words. It is true that everyone in the world should have personal freedom, the basic human rights, a government that serves the people not itself, and so on, but attempting to create that change under gunpoint will only deter that cause at this time.
The United Nations Security Council will probably not approve a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq now unless Saddam Hussein starts another war or acts out his terrorist fantasies outside his country. France, where popular opinion is strongly anti-Bush and anti-war, will veto any war resolutions.
Well I understand what you mean but it's so frustrating.......didn't he promise to get rid of his nukes and biological weapons before? Yet he lied about destroying all of them......It almost makes wanna say "forget it" and let him build a powerful arsenal again, so when he decides to Nuke someone or test some of his chemical weapons on his people again ( I heard this happened before) then people will see what he's all about. Yet it might be somewhat late to try to sanction the guy then. I think if this happens and the UN should THEN decide to take actions against him the US should say "I told you so, now don't .......... with me asking me to help you fight him, go way". What makes you think he's not gonna lie again?
howdy,
France has significant financial interests in Iraq, mainly nuclear reactor(s), these facilities will be the first to be destroyed or ocupied by US troops.
Germany is very deeply embeded in the Iraqi oil industry, again these facilities will be destroyed but probably by the Iraqi's themselves.
i must confess i dont have any idea what Russia' come from is but of all of the Security Council oposition Russia "may" really be taking the position of "peace on earth..."
after the ocupation of Iraq many many deep dark secrets will be exposed, some of which France and Germany would rather not be seen by public eyes. that is why they are so much against any action.
M.R
PPL ask why do we have to rush to war? Here are the reasons the war clock ticks.
1. POLOTICS:
---How long do u think the wussy UN will have the ballz to maintain sanctions and inspections?
---How long do u think it will be politically feasable for the Mideast countries like suadi arabia to allow an INVASION FORCE to stay on it's soil for an indefinite period of time?
2. COST:
---The US & UK spend BILLIONS to maintain the forces and bases within that region to CONTAIN saddam. It is the US & UK who risk the lives of their men & women to confront this madman who despite all of this detturence factors still maintains his programs of WMD. - The FRENCH and GERMANS and the rest of europe have NO say in this b/c they haven't spent a red cent or risked a single man to contain saddam and bear the cost in any way - thusly they should SHUT THE F** UP.
---Terrorism is also a cost that the US bears in this, it is our forces in the region and the perception that it is ONLY the US that maintains the sanctions that cuase the resentment and inspires terrorism against america and americans-- The FRENCH and GERMANs know this but they don't care, thus proving that they don't give an SH** about america, americans, or terrorism against us.
3. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD):
---Saddam is replenishing his military to pre-GULF WAR levels thusly growing into a military threat to the US & UK and still not complying with resolutions of the UN.
---Saddam is continuing his WMD research in the face of the US and UN and creating ways to deliver those weapons - u want proof - what the HELL are those MISSLES that were just discovered, the one's that saddam is pretending to destroy(al-samuudII), what the hell are they for?? I didn't know saddam had a space program?? The only reason for those missiles is to carry a payload of something more than 1,000lb of TNT like the old scuds... it is something far more sinister.
---PPL say why don't we just wait for him to use them and then we can go after him. Do you want to be the one on the other end of those missiles?? The europeans don't feel the threat b/c it is the US, ISRAEL, or one of our allies in the region who will take the brunt of it - these europeans are too sheltered and narrow minded to think about anyone but themselves.
The UN has always been reluctant to take ANY action, in fact in the first gulf war they hemmed and hawed to give saddam every chance and still it was not unanimous. It was only after saddam set the oil fields on fire did the UN act to -- BLESS -- a war - it never allowed it but only agreed that action should be taken - and how lucky they were that the US was there to lead the coalition - not a UN coalition - but a coalition of the willing just as it will go down again in gulf war 2.
For all of those who believe this will cuase the US more terrorism, ask yourself this, aren't we already at war with terrorists? What do u think will cause more terrorism against the US, housing an INVASION FORCE in hostile countries for an indefinite period like the FRENCH and GERMANs want or removing saddam and bringing freedom, democracy, and prosperity to iraq and allow our troops to be pulled out within a few years and gain a friend in the region?
Thats a tough question, because either way we were screwed.
My only complaint with Bush is that he has danced around this Iraq crap and made too many jokes about it. If there was a time for action, it was the afternoon of Sep 11th when we had him.
i think the only problem bush is having right now w/this war is that he already used his "free war card" that he got on sept. 11, on afganistan
Please learn how to spell and come back when you're ready to actually add something to the grown-up conversations, m'kay?Quote:
Originally posted by LouDu
If i was President Bush's secratery i would do as fallows...
1. Change His current war plans and plans to propose to the UN to Blow up Iraq and put a missle thru osma bin ladne and saddam husanes head.
2. Vote for bush till he dies, even if he isnt on the ballow, that will make florida recount more :)
Easy govt, dont you member when you were little, sitting at the kiddie table? He's just anxious to talk with the grown ups :DQuote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
Please learn how to spell and come back when you're ready to actually add something to the grown-up conversations, m'kay?
howdy,
OSR please don't forget the Aussie navy, they are helping with the blockade of the Iraqi ports.
besides that, BRAVO OSR i couldn't have said it better myself.
M.R.
M.R.
Holy hell - I never thought I'd see the day someone agreed with OSR... Guess the airborne pork and temperature drops around Redmond should start soon.Quote:
Originally posted by itld
howdy,
OSR please don't forget the Aussie navy, they are helping with the blockade of the Iraqi ports.
besides that, BRAVO OSR i couldn't have said it better myself.
::imitates homer's voice::
mmmmm.....porrrrrrk....
howdy,
and it HAD to be me.Quote:
I never thought I'd see the day someone agreed with OSR
M.R.
i think it's safe to say that OSR has some of the most contriversial opinions on the boards...but hey, you cant be mad at him for sticking up for his beliefs
> but hey, you cant be mad at him for sticking up for his beliefs
Most people will tell you I've got no problem with that at all. It's because he's a complete and utter fscktard when he does it that I hate him.
*Vote for Bush*
The UN is the democratic assembly of the world. When the US president tells the UN that they must agree with him or be irrelevent, GWB is telling the rest of the world that our opinion is irrelevent.
If GWB has no respect for our opinion why should we help the US, now or in the future?
It is no secret now that the US and UK were major suppliers of the WMD to Iraq and Sadam. It has just emerged that UK tax payers spent US$ billions supplying Sadam with WMD (inc a chemical weapons plant used to produce the gases used on Iranians and Iraqis)
Should the US have sold Sadam WMD in over 700 shipments during the late 1980's?
OK. It did not know what he was going to do with them. (though they had a good idea given what they were selling)
Did it stop when Sadam used them on Iran or Iraqi Kurds?
No. The germs ect kept rolling in for the next two years.
OK. Prahaps it was a honest mistake.
My objection is that the US / UK does not learn from these mistakes and continues to sell these weapons to anyone with a $.
For example it is now trying to bribe Turkey with US$6 billion to allow US troops launch an invasion from Turkey.
What will these $ be in? More weapons.
Its not like its peaceful in Turkey.
Both Greece and Turkey claim Cyprus, more than a third of which has been occupied by Turkish forces since 1974, and the two countries have clashed hundreds of times in the last 25 years.
Though barred by Congress from selling offensive weapons to Cyprus, in 1997 the U.S. sold (or allowed American corporations to sell) more than $270 million worth of weapons to Greece and nearly $750 million worth to Turkey.
As to obeying the rules of the UN (which Iraq being in violation of is the trigger for this war), read this page on the US v Nicaragua in 1984. It clearly shows how the US considered itself above the rules of International Justice Court and the UN.
http://www.headnorth.com/clients/mattj/casestudy.htm
Not to mention the US support for Israel (which is in violation of UN resloutions for 35 years).
howdy,
all very valid points novacain.
this one is rather frustrating to a large number of Americans
M.R.Quote:
Not to mention the US support for Israel (which is in violation of UN resloutions for 35 years).
i dont get it, we cancel aid w/Nicaragua and help oppose the new government so they take us to UN and ...??? WTF?? i dont get your point, and how are we in breach by helping israel wheres the oh so helpful link to that site
His point was that the US feels itself above the UN, as evident in the US ignoring the resolutions calling for the US to compensate Nicaragua
It is rather interesting how the US wants Iraq to comply with UN resolutions and uses its non-compliance as a reason for war, yet the US ignores any resolutions it doesnt like. The US should voluntarily comply with decisions against it, if only to set an example for other countries to follow and especially if it plans on using UN resolutions as reasons for war
The UN is shyt jsut let bush put a rocket thru saddams head
...ok, i think i understand what youre saying, how come none of this is made public, i mean, obviously it IS public, but how come all these anti war people dont bring up this point because it is a good point, how hypocritical of us to say comply or we'll bomb you and overthrow you when at the same time we're saying to Nicaragua "ah, we dont have to comply we're the US" ???Quote:
Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
It is rather interesting how the US wants Iraq to comply with UN resolutions and uses its non-compliance as a reason for war, yet the US ignores any resolutions it doesnt like. The US should voluntarily comply with decisions against it, if only to set an example for other countries to follow and especially if it plans on using UN resolutions as reasons for war
i dont think most people are aware of some of the stuff that we've done and then tell other countries not to do or else we'll overthrow you?
[edit] by the way, what is the resolution that says we cant support israel, im kinda interested in reading up on that issue
>>The US should voluntarily comply with decisions against it, if only to set an example for other countries to follow and especially if it plans on using UN resolutions as reasons for war
Exactly.
If we ever want to become a peaceful world free from war (and WMD) then we ALL have to abide by the rules. Not just the when it suits our agendas.
>>we cancel aid w/Nicaragua and help oppose the new government so they take us to UN and
And mined their harbours, provided arms to the rebel faction and supported drug running. Nothing to do with the aid.
A "covert programme of backing Nicaraguan opponents" means "running guns, drugs to and from the US to Nicaragua". Search for 'Iran contra' or 'Operation TIPPED KETTLE' or 'Eugene Hasenfus' on google.
Basically the guns came from Israel (confiscated from the PLO) and were sent in secret to the Nicaraguan rebels using money Pres Regan got from Saudi Arabia. As the money ran out the operation (lasting 5 years) was financed by drugs. Lt Col Oliver North took the fall as Pres Regan could not remember anything about it.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm
>>what is the resolution that says we cant support israel
Israel is in violation of UNSCR 242 and 338 (anong others).
Seems strange that 1/3 of US aid goes to the 16 richest country in the world. Not to mention that private donations to Israel are tax deductable.
This is realy just a subsidy to US arms exporters as most aid is spent on arms. This creates a demand in other Middle East countries for arms. Israel actually tried to slow the arms race in the Middle East in 1992 but the US rejected the idea.
>>but how come all these anti war people dont bring up this point because it is a good point
Because the media wants the war. great ratings.
The arms manufactures want the war (obviously).
GWB can't go to the next election with SH in power or he will look weak.
All in all, because they don't want you to know.
nova,
Im sorry, but i have to say this
you're an idiot.
now my apology... i'm sorry i was a little ........ed, i feel better now.
and plus now you dont have to listen to a 3 page rant.
on a more serious note,
You are blinded by you ignorance and incredible hate for the U.S. you are and have been extremely anti-american since i can remember.
please explain to me why do you hate the U.S. so much, please share.
no propaganda no bull$$$$, don't give me the yearbook answer either, lay it out.
howdy,
i'll take a stab at it.
ultralibral
M.R.
Yeah, NOVACAIN quit bringing up old crap... remember that there was such a thing as a COLD WAR and the BS you keep quoting is all from that era and your govt.s were just as complicit in it's acts as the US.
Your arguments make no sense when a power like the SOVIET UNION comes into south america to make trouble the US is not allowed to play defense?? Maybe we should all look into the actions of the Australians and what they did in EAST TIMOR and INDONESIA. Maybe u don't recall that they supported evil regimes that kidnapped and murdered to maintain stability...
All of the western powers played just as dirty as the SOVIETS and I'm glad they did, b/c we won.
Many historians argue that after the COLD WAR and the fall of the soviet union that a new measure of history should begin - a new era. It's unfair to tie too closely that past to the new post cold war era as it is a new game and a new world with new evils.
In many ways the problems we see today are the result of the collapse of communism and the soviet union...
---North Korea used to get all it's oil and supplies from the soviets for FREE - not anymore and that is why they are trying to bribe the world now as they are on the verge of collapse.
---Saddam a stalinist soviet client state, was UNRESTRAINED after the fall of the soviets, he no longer had a force to dictate his actions or ppl to listen to.
---Most of the AFRICAN nations at war today were client or supported states by the soviets, and the civil wars have spilled over to everywhere on that continent turning that region into one big MESS.
U try to blame the US for the worlds problems u r blind as SH** as the answer is the collapse of an evil system and an evil power and it is the MESS they left in their wake that we are cleaning up today - that includes IRAQ.
Why is it that some Americans want to silence debate?
(although I enjoy it when the personal attacks start, as it shows that you have no factual basis to debate me upon)
>> You are blinded by you ignorance
ignorance::lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified
Sorry I thought I was well informed. What fact have I got wrong?
Or is my interpretation that the US will act against UN resolutions incorrect?
>> It's unfair to tie too closely that past to the new post cold war era as it is a new game and a new world with new evils.
So pointing out that the US is making the same mistakes it made then is wrong?
Is it too much to expect the US to live up to the ideals it demands the rest of the world live up to?
>>Saddam a stalinist soviet client state
Check your facts, actually SH was aided by the US as he was both anti Communist and non Muslim.
>>Australians and what they did in EAST TIMOR and INDONESIA
Actually it is how we are ripping off the East Timorese now over the Sunlight Oil fields by ignoring the UN costal waters charter.
It was Indonesia v Australia in East Timor.
What exactly did we do in Indonesia?
Why don't you pick on how we treated OUR indigenous peoples?
Hey up until the late 50's they were considered flauna.
What is the UN??? Is it the final say in things? Obviously not, in fact if it were for the UN the US would not be allowed to go in Afghanistan, Tawain would not be free of CHINA repression and threat, KOSOVO would still be being ethnically cleansed, the BOSNIAN war would still be going on.
SOMALIA is still in dire straits and it was the UN who commanded that operation and then LEFT after america did.
HAITI was a UN operation that FAILED.
And the list continues, the UN has a sorry ass record on taking action - it just doesn't - it is as expected of a body of DEBATERS and many nations with different interests and a reluctance to PAY for the large social projects they try to force on the world.
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. They instead have "ORGANIC FARMING" projects that use 2 - 3 times the land and produce half the produce - while elitists pat themselves on the back for implementing their IDEALS - ppl starve.
THE US has the power to make the UN irrelevant as it is the US who pays a large amount of the bills, it is the US who leads in supporting the resolutions, it is the US who leads in ENFORCING the sancitions and resolutions and it is the US who who gives credence and relevance to the actions of the UN as it is one of the only members who backs up the UN's mandates with actual money and FORCE.
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 neighborhoodsQuote:
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.
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.
"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?
howdy,
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.Quote:
the other permanent members to belly up and start commiting forces, money, and a GODDAMN backbone to support UN actions
M.R.
> the CHANCE that someone MIGHT
Slow down, howdy - we don't need anymore random capitaliZATION!
Oh, crap - it's spreading.