Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I hope and believe you are wrong, but you may be right. I think that regardless of how long it takes it will happen sooner than if the regime had been in power another 20-30 years though.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Just a side comment on a tangent from the current line of thought. Isn't it interesting that in nations with great turmoil and no or unstable currency the money of choice is almost always the U.S. Dollar?

How's that for stable? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
And the U.S. Dollar isn't even worth anything except a promise that it is worth something.

I guess the U.S. has an excellent credit rating in the eyes of the worlds people. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yup very! It's also interesting how some countries can openly despise and hate the USA but have no problem using their currency.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Example of Stable dictatorship?? Cuba, Castro? You have a lot of years the "same" policies, leader etc...

Quote:

Ok, there ARE 'stable' democracies, BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Every x years a regime change = technically not stable. Often other leaders, other policies etc..
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well Yea dictatorships are often stable during the life of the dictator? But how did Castro come to power and what will happen when he dies? When a new leader takes over in a democarcy for the most part the entire governemt sturcture and all lower levels stay intact. All previous government commitments stay intact ( well at least the ones that have got to the point of binding contracts )

I think we have a differnt view on what stable means. Things may be instable at the very top level of government but the government and country as a whole is pretty stable.

Of course getting a democracy well established and stable is going to be pretty tough in Iraq.

[ April 19, 2003, 12:49: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yup very! It's also interesting how some countries can openly despise and hate the USA but have no problem using their currency.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the old times, the Gold ruled the international transactions, and the currencies were supported (in theory), with their equivalent in Gold. Then, the nation with more Gold had the more strong currentcy.
After the Second Wave, when Englad had the global supremacy, the more used currency for international transactions was the "Pound".
Of course that in our days, the Gold pattern doesn't support anymore the currencies... then, for a good time we will have the Dollar, although the Euro could be a new player.

Here an interesting link related with the currency and the war in Iraq: http://www.evworld.com/databases/sto...fm?storyid=490
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Must say that I don't believe this argument... but no more than the "oficial" arguments to justify this war.

[ April 20, 2003, 14:47: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

In the Colonial days of America, the Pound was the official currency. But the Spanish Dollar was more popular and very much in circulation. Then when we gave the boot to the King, we of course adopted the Dollar, only we didn�t break it down by 8 as the Spaniards did. Hence the common name of �Pieces of Eight�. Back then money was supported by the value of precious metal, Gold in America and Silver in England. Today it is supported by economic strength and exchange rate. Given the strength of the American economy, and the ability of the Federal Reserve to influence exchange rates, the American Dollar has become the universal currency. A point of note would be that three countries print American Dollars. America and Liberia do it legally and Iran does it on the sly. The Iranian $100 bill is considered an exact
copy.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well put and interesting about Iran! My point (apparently poorly made) is that some countries seem to reject all the aspects of western culture that have made the US dollar the 'universal currency' it is but yet are still willing to use it. Seems a bit hypocritical.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well the US government has never once defaulted on a loan or failed to make payment.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't see anything hypocritical; Although people reject western Ideals, they would cirtainly like to have western stuff, such as food, clothing, electronics,l and sometimes, even weapons. But people who sell these items only trade in accepted currencies; mainly, the US dollar. Therefore, the only sensible thing to do is to trade in the Dollar rather than Dinars.

It's been done since the beginning of civilization; the only difference is we trade money now, rather than barter precious metals like back then.

[ April 21, 2003, 05:04: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

If what they reject is western culture I don�t see why they have to deny western wealth. Currency is backed by the wealth, not by the culture.

It depends on your definition of �stable� and �unstable�.
I don�t know if this is what Some1 meant with �technically NOT STABLE�, but there�ve been many more successful coups against democracies than against dictatorships.
To overcome a dictatorship you need to support a rebel force able to face the dictator�s military.
To overcome a democracy you just need to turn the military leaders against the civilian government.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And more important, will the western world and specially the USA support a democracy even if it chooses to act against its economic interests?
Will an Iraqi democracy be allowed for example to take measures that may affect the oil market?

Iraq may be labeled a democracy soon, after all that is needed as a justification for this conflict. But yes it will take some time until it matures into �independent country with a true Democracy�.
This also depends on how strict are your definitions of �independence� and �true democracy� but I believe and hope that you'll live long enough to see this happen.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, it would support a democracy even if it acts against it's economic interests. Why wouldn't it? You don't see the US invading Venezuela right now, right?

And even with the world's 2nd largest oil reserves, It wouldn't make that big of a impact regardless of whatever measures it takes; not with OPEC and the US watching over it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The US managed to do a fine job of helping to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII, and helping to get stable, autonomous, democratic governments set up in them. They were much greater enemies than Iraq is. Why would you expect less of the US now?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lol. Because the president now is Bush and his prime interest is money. Thats pretty obvious.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I for one, don't want a true democracy in Iraq. Some type of representative government would be much better. A constitution that protects the rights of the minority is also extremely important. Otherwise, the strongest of the three or four major sects will likely "lord it over" all others. This could be almost as bad as Saddam and the Batth party exerting control over the other sects. Haven't heard anything about a constitutional convention in Iraq from the media. Has anyone else heard any news like this??

Greybeard

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Story on meeting of some Iraqi leaders from MSNBC.

Iraqi leadership convention

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Fyron... I believe that you must factor in Chilie, Panama , D.R. , Nic. , Columbia, Vietnam ,Granada etc... for the full picture of U.S.'s involvement in this issue on their support and helping with the development of 'Democracy'.

General Marshall was what I would call a visionary. He will be forgotten by history, which is wrong, but desk jockies do not make great hero's i guess.

P.S. guess the number of spelling mistakes in this post and win a prize

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Marshall was the most influential man of the twentieth century. He had greater beneficial effect than Einstein and more Lasting effect than Hitler or Lenin. His plan was not popular, was not traditional, was not the way things were done. I do not see anything like it being done any time soon.

U.S. will go places, make changes, and leave things in unstable changes-made state. Then chaos will undo any good that could have come from changes made, and everything still sucks.

Despite that, U.S. is still the greatest place to live and the best country over all. No one else has ever pulled off a Marshal Plan. No powerful country, including present and past European and Asian powers, has ever conquered a country and fixed it as well, and left it as independent, and the U.S. did to Germany and Japan. Heck, the fact that they disagree with the U.S. or think themselves superior is only testimony to how healthy they have been made to be.

Bash U.S., they _do_ make mistakes. Go ahead. They can't seem to do anything right in Central and South America. It's true.

But no that no other country, including yours, has fixed Japan or Germany. No other country, including yours, has saved the world from fascism or statist communism.

It is my fervent hope that the U.S. finds more men like Marshal. If they do not, we are all in a world of trouble.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lol. Because the president now is Bush and his prime interest is money. Thats pretty obvious.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm... same with _every_ other president we have ever had... so why would you expect any difference now?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lol. Because the president now is Bush and his prime interest is money. Thats pretty obvious.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm... same with _every_ other president we have ever had... so why would you expect any difference now?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's not entirely true. There was Millard Fillmore.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1) It's "Chile", not "Chilie"
2) It's "Colombia", not "Columbia"
3) It's "jockeys", not "jockies
4) It's "heroes, not "hero's"
5) "I" is usually capitalized.

Do I get the prize? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

The war was about....

http://www.funny-funny-pictures.com/dp/1-287.htm

and...

http://www.funny-funny-pictures.com/dp/1-290.htm

[ April 22, 2003, 20:14: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Loser, I admire you, you are my heroe of the week! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
This is exactly the way I feel, with the addition that I firmly believe that the current president is taking the US to a dark hole of an unholy mix of christian fundamentalism, corporate dominance and dictactorship.
He only need a massive terrorist attack, to ask for especial powers to fight terrorism, and thus take away the constitutional rights, and many Americans will agree for the sake of security. It will not be the first popular Presidential Dictactorship.
I will always remember the US as it was under Clinton. For me that was the Golden Age.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That was cool.
I always new something was very, very wrong with the current administration.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lol. Because the president now is Bush and his prime interest is money. Thats pretty obvious.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It amazes me that people think they can so easily guess at a man's motivation without knowing the man himself. I do not know President Bush personally, so I can only guess at his motivations. I find my guesses to be quite different than yours. I have seen a man who is willing to make a stand on principles, even when his stand is unpopular. I do not agree with every stand he takes, but I always know where he stands. That is a very rare thing in a politician, and welcome to me.

Many in this forum have stooped to calling him names, like kids in grade school. I do not understand that. This forum has always struck me as much more mature than that. I can understand disagreeing with his policies, especially about this war. But to pile childish insults on a man who is not even here to defend himself is hardly productive.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First, thank you. That thanks does mean something to me.

Second, you need not worry about a dictatorship of any sort in the U.S., not any time soon. I will not, can not happen because of a few very important features of the U.S. government.

While all U.S. citizens learn about the structure of the government, the reason for the maddening division of power is rarely dwelled upon. The manifold splintering of power in the U.S. government ensures that absolute control is difficult to grasp, and impossible to keep for very long.

The divided legislature keeps both population-type majorities and incumbent-type conspiracies at bay. The frequency of elections makes maintaining unpopular power impossible. The democratic manner of executive appointment is certain to keep isolated individuals from consistent power; anyone who has participated in Real Democracy knows that it is anarchical: it makes no better decisions, but its chaos keeps power from any one person.

Add to this the scarcity of actual members of the military, and you have a dictator's nightmare. He cannot hold power though the system. He cannot hold power though brutish means. And he cannot consistently manipulate the legislature to his ends.

I would like to suppose that your fixation on the Clinton Years is an issue of age. When I was younger I idealized the Reagan Terms. I see better now, but I would like to point out that Reagan won the Cold War, Clinton's best feature was his ineffectuality, and that he was 'cool' of course. Reagan could never have been cool.

In short, you do not need to worry about the U.S. Government: others are worrying for you and doing a better job of it. Everyone please take a few deep breaths, it is going to be okay.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Getting away from the "my president can beat up your president" remarks..

To everyone who says we invaded for oil: think for a moment. If we invaded for humanitarian reasons, is that -better- in the long run? My answer would be no. How much of the world has oil? Compare that to how much of the world the US could justify invading for humanitarian reasons.

Not that I consider invading for either all that justified, but..

Phoenix-D

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Chile
Colombia
Space after the coma
Grenada
"is" should not be attached on words that end with "s"; instead, only an apostrophe should be attached.
Used What instead of Who
Jockeys
Heroes
I

Spelling and Grammar errors in total: 9

I hope I get extra credit for grammar http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ April 23, 2003, 05:26: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Except that we have quite a few big clues about his motivations. For example, the tens of billions of dollars' worth of work for the rebuilding of Iraq, all contracted out to his corporate friends. And all of this arranged and planned even before he even came to power.

Also remember that half the 'justification' for this war was based upon Saddams intention (ie motivation) to launch nuclear weapons at the US or some such crap. If Bush can start a war and kill thousands on the basis of what he thinks someone else's pmotivations might be, I feel perfectly justified in slagging him off for what I think his are.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

[quote]Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

Quote:

Many in this forum have stooped to calling him names, like kids in grade school. I do not understand that. This forum has always struck me as much more mature than that. I can understand disagreeing with his policies, especially about this war. But to pile childish insults on a man who is not even here to defend himself is hardly productive.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When I have called GWB a moron, it was a reference to his foreign policy which is moronic. I have no idea if he truly is a moron or if he just gets bad advice.

And I would love to se him get a chance to defend himself. A war crime tribunal in The Hague would be a suitable venue. There is a cosy cell available next to Slobodan’s.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Wow Thanks guys.

I believe my spelling is down to a grade three level now....

Primative perhaps the question that should be asked is this.

With reguards to the the issue of WMD.

Is the current administration and those in charge of the Intel agency dishonest or incompetent? Or both? It is a question that should be asked in U.S.A. and here in the forum.

If their dishonest they should be removed. If their incompetent then they should be removed due to the fact they do not have the ability to oversee the organizations they run.

Just some thoughts.

And Yes I am a fan of Marshell,,, I thought my post gave that impression.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I did not think you weren't. I just feel that Marshall (got the spelling right this time) is underappreciated, and my rant switch twitched.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is indeed an unsettling question, and unfortunately one that cannot swiftly be answered. Because the data needed to clearly answer this question is necessarily classified, we will have to wait for history to judge.

In the mean time, we can only speculate, and judge them based on their accomplishments. Do take care, though, to notice not only the highly publicized errors, but also the day-to-day successes of the U.S. intelligence community. This could not be easy if you are already strongly for, or against, the current administration.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are? Well, I have an extra Marshell rookie card I'll trade to you for '44 Patton and a Genghis Kahn Millenium All-Stars card. I am trying to complete a set.

Sorry about that, I just got a vision of a bunch of kids sitting around swapping "Famous General" picture trading cards. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Dogscoff said:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(bold added)
Sorry Dogscoff, you may have linked this (or in some way referenced the original source) before, but I'm a little lazy and don't want to hunt the forum for the info. Would you be able to direct me to the source of this please?

Thanks,
jimbob

PS: Geo and tesco; PM

[ April 23, 2003, 16:27: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Saddams Missles Hidden in Plain Sight!

http://www.insanepictures.com/pic.shtml?1053.jpg

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

DS:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be baseless propaganda.

Primitive:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Except that Bush hasn't committed any war crimes...

Tesco:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Guess we have to remove all politicians from every office on the planet. Part of being a politician is being able to lie well.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well of course. But, none of them are incompentent. They all do their jobs very well.

[ April 23, 2003, 19:06: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

http://www.janes.com/security/intern...0423_1_n.shtml

interesting read.... on the current situation in Afghanistan.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

[quote]Originally posted by primitive:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

Quote:

Many in this forum have stooped to calling him names, like kids in grade school. I do not understand that. This forum has always struck me as much more mature than that. I can understand disagreeing with his policies, especially about this war. But to pile childish insults on a man who is not even here to defend himself is hardly productive.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When I have called GWB a moron, it was a reference to his foreign policy which is moronic. I have no idea if he truly is a moron or if he just gets bad advice.

And I would love to se him get a chance to defend himself. A war crime tribunal in The Hague would be a suitable venue. There is a cosy cell available next to Slobodan’s.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While I disagree with your assessment of his foreign policy, far more immature and meaningless names have been used in this thread than "moron". You are entitled to your views, as am I. I was refering to other expressions. I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on as far as "war crimes" go, though.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Many allegations have been made, but there has not been enough time for the truth to be known. Remember how the military offensive was "bogged down" and we had no chance to win without heavy losses. Now the complaints are that we haven't found WMD yet (though there have been many suspicious finds), so there must not be any. Let us see what time reveals.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be baseless propaganda.

[QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually Wolfowitz and Perle - who work for Rumsfeld - were huge proponents of attacking Iraq even before 9/11 they co-wrote a paper which was written before 9/11 about that subject - NOT because of terrorism or WMD btw - but because it would be a relatively easy way to project U.S. power into the region. 9/11 was a convenient excuse.

The real "propaganda" was how they duped U.S. public opinion to get behind the war.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I will affirm that this is true. It is said to be true, though I have not read the paper myself, it has been reported.

I just don't see a problem with it.

Hawkish? Yes.

Irresponsible? It is hard to tell without all the cards down.

Wrong? We'll see.

When it comes down to it, the U.S. hawks must be given a chance once in a while, if only to remind the only remaining Superpower of its limitations. This is necessary. Just think, if the U.S. didn't have Afghanistan and Iraq on which to try its might, it just might seek an alternative solution to its problems with the steel subsidies in the Czech Republic, or belligerence in China, or France, just France.

It will balance, in the end. It would be nice if it didn't have to work this way, but it does. Maybe later, when humanity grows up a bit more... blah, blah, blah (you know where that goes).

Anyway, manipulation of the media and public opinion is not bad, it's just the way things get done. Plenty of things get washed over for those in power: Kennedy things, Clinton things, Reagan things, Bush things, more Kennedy things, you get the picture. You want honesty, listen to the Billy Joel song. You want accountability, well, we might be able to help you there, but you might not like what universal accountability does to _your_ heroes.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Alpha Kodiak
The main reason I have not used any more immature names on GWB than "Moron" is my lack of skills with the English laguage http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Moronic foreign policy:
Everybody is entitled to their own view. In my view it's very moronic. He has gained very little, and lost very much. Thats just plain bad maths to me.

War crimes:
GWB was a "suspected" war criminal even before this war due to the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. (this have been covered before, Dogscoff had a nice link that can be dug up again).
Starting a war all by himself without any justifiable reason does not speak well for him either.
If he really is innocent, he could have his name cleared easily by letting some unbiassed people look into the Guantanamo Base and at the war preparations. Until that happens, he will remain a "suspected" war criminal.
The old "the President got imunity" + the even older "the rules don't apply for Americans" rutines are not a great help either in freeing him from suspicion.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, I never used such things. I was just debasing your reasons for calling him a war criminal. And, I strongly suspect that Alpha Kodiak was doing the same. In fact, no one here has made such claims, and I don't think anyone here would.

[ April 24, 2003, 00:18: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Fyron:
Where does my post accuse you of saying anything.

Please bring something new into the discussion instead of the same old tedious "I didn't say that, but you said" routine. It's very boring.

The "the President got imunity" and the "the rules don't apply for Americans" are commonly used popular rewritings of official US policy. If you want to discuss the validity of those statements, then please go ahead.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I was the one that started denouncing your claim, so it was implied that it related to me. And, I then went to say in no unclear terms that I am fairly certain that Alpha Kodiak was doing the same.

If people would stop making up things to respond to in other people's Posts, I would not have to do that "old tedious routine".

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

"the President got imunity" and the "the rules don't apply for Americans"

I have never heard anyone make those claims before now. Not anyone with any type of authority to act on anything like that.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Here is a link to an article from BBC on war crimes regarding Yugoslavia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm

For those who are lazy:
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including . . . wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, . . . taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

I do not claim to be capable of judging GWB on those charges. But I would certaninly like to see an investigation.

But there won't be any, cause "the rules don't apply for Americans":
(Quote from the article) "In 1998, 120 countries signed up to a resolution in Rome calling for the formation of an International Criminal Court.
Only seven members of the United Nations voted against the resolution. The most prominent of these being the United States which argued that the court might be ineffective and become a tool for politically motivated prosecutions of Americans."

And AFAIK "the President got imunity", so its not possible to raise a civil case in the US either.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Rex perhaps the US used Weapons of Mass Distraction.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Some more background info on WMD
Countries that oppose resolutions to remove this threat from the world.

Resolution 57/57 expressed its opposition to an arms race in space; the United States, Israel, and Micronesia were the only no votes.

Resolution 57/58 called for nuclear weapons states to reduce their non-strategic nuclear arsenals; the United States joined with the UK and France in voting no. Resolution 57/59 urged a nuclear-free world; the six no votes all came from nuclear weapons states: the United States, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and Israel.

Resolution 57/62 aimed to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocols banning the use of chemical and biological weapons. The resolution called upon states which had signed the Protocols with reservations to withdraw their reservations. The only non-affirmative votes were the abstentions from the United States, Israel, and Micronesia. (The United States signed the Protocols with reservations.)

Resolution 57/71 called simply for the General Assembly to continue studying the question of missiles and their implications for world peace and security. The United States, along with Israel and Micronesia, voted no. Resolution 57/65 endorsed further consideration of the relationship between disarmament and development. Only the United States voted no. Resolution 57/73, which advocated a nuclear-weapons free southern hemisphere, received negative votes only from the United States, Britain, and France. Resolution 57/78 laid out a path to total nuclear disarmament - earning negative votes only from the United States and India. The United States, Israel, and Micronesia voted no on resolution 57/97, which dealt with nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. On resolution 57/100 on the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the United States cast the sole no vote.

On four other resolutions dealing with nuclear weapons (57/79 on disarmament, 57/84 on reducing the nuclear danger, 57/85 on the legality of nuclear weapons, and 57/94 on the prohibition of nuclear weapons), the United States was one of several dozen nations to vote no. And on resolution 57/56, calling for international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the United States was one of 55 abstainers.

Again some background information. Draw your own conculsions and then post it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Damn Micronesians....

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebu...iraq/index.asp

http://www.capitaleye.org/iraqchart.3.12.03.asp

Just some more fuel for the fire..... Then I should get back to the 12 hour work day.