|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
"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."" Which is actually a fairly legit concern. If a court becomes politically motivated, it gets much less useful. Ussually. "And AFAIK "the President got imunity", so its not possible to raise a civil case in the US either." Under US law I think the President could pardon himself, making any trial a bit..pointless. (of course if it came to that he'd be commiting political suicide) Phoenix-D |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
[sarcasm] Right, because as we all know, UN departments and functions are never commandeered for politically motivated reasons, and are always neutral in their approach to all situations. There are of course no countries or NGO's out there that will wield a UN body to go after the USA simply because it's big, powerful, wealthy, or the Great Satan - regardless of the purpose of the UN body in question. [/sarcasm]
This may well indeed go a long ways to explaining why the US does not want to be under the authority of an international court. What keeps countries like Iraq (before GWII) from innundating the court with baseless charges against the US, while they have an incredibly bad record themselves? Unlike the Iraqi leadership, the world would actually expect that the US leadership would show up for their court dates - but would have no such expectation of the Tin Pot Dictators of this world - yet another double standard that the US (rightly IMHO) simply is not willing to endure. Hey, them's my thoughts on it anyway. jimbob |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
The President ... shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
-U.S. Constitution However the U.S. supreme Court has ruled that it is ok to sue the President while he is in office for actions he has taken that were not related to his official duties. IE: Couldn't sue him for firing you. What the President and his people say about something is irrelevant. It is upto the Supreme Court to interpret the law and the Constitution, not the President or the Congress. 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.) Jimbob hit a large part of everything on the head. There is no such thing as being biased. Look at things as they are. How often has the US born the brunt of cost or action but been asked to not hold the leadership position? As to the various resolutions... I think that looking at just that information is totally irrelevant to viewing the US votes. Also this is throwing a double standard once again. How many people actually think passing a resolution to totally ban Nuclear weapons would actually result in a nuclear weapon free world? It wouldn't certain reputable nations would be expected to comply and demonstrate compliance. Other nations wouldn't comply and if they said the did wouldn't demonstrate that compliance in any meaningful way. Then what do you have? The "responsible" world nations don't have them and a few rogue nations, such as North Korea, do. What deterent do you have to stop them from using those weapons now? You can invade them? How effective is that when an entire invading force can be vaporized in an instant? This is the problem of at least some (and some would argue all) diplomacy needing to be backed with at least equal or greater force. And what about the resolutions that the US voted yes on and other nations voted against? Hrmm? Conveniantly overlooked? Such as: Resolution for a report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (57/9) only North Korea voted no. Resolution dealing with the law of the sea (57/141) only Turkey voted no. Resolution on conventional arms control on the regional and subregional level (57/77), only India voted no. Resolution appealing to states to offer scholarships to Palestinian refugees for higher education (57/120) Israel was the lone abstainer and no votes of no. You can look at other areas and see many nations that vote in what they see as their interests. Yet the United States and a few other nations are singled out for these activities and pointed at for wrong doing? And of course there is the level of authority held by UN resolutions? How many actually do what they are supposed to effectively? The UN has no power and each of the nations that is a member seeks to use it to gain power for themselves while controlling the power of the other nations. This easily shows why the US and other powerful nations have more vetoes in their name than other nations. They have more power to guard against and more nations want to weaken them. The United Nations is made up of nations but it certainly isn't United and you can forget all about unbiased. [ April 24, 2003, 19:16: Message edited by: Cyrien ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
http://cogenteur.blogspot.com/2003_0...r_archive.html
along one... but well worth the read.... on the topic of WMD.... Why? Because this issue will not be 'buried in the sand' I think these questions need to be asked and answered. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Of course, that all assumes that you don't hold to a double standard.... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks Geo. I have been avoiding this sort of thing for some time, but unfortunately, I have been home from work sick the Last few days, and the low grade fever has clouded my judgment. I think it is time that I depart this thread before I work myself up too much. Speaking to those with their minds stuck in concrete is a waste of breath. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
A.K. I for one hope you do not leave this thread.
It helps keep balance here. And I believe you will have alot of thoughts / opinions / links to add to the future debates over Iraq, War and Politics. Do not feel ashamed for posting your feelings to your fellow friends at this forum. They are read and thought about and answered. Your Opinion is important and has helped shape this thread to its current position. I hope you carry on with shaping it , debating it and reading it. Your friend and fellow poster Tesco. P.S. I hope you get better soon. P.P.S. Another link about WMD http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0...ion-145152.htm |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Geo.
I have attempted to understand why the reasons for supporting the war and the reasons for not supporting the war. I am sorry that my Posts have led you to think that. Tesco |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Of course, that all assumes that you don't hold to a double standard....</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Geo's post was one of sarcasm aimed at those that refuse to see any point of view other than their own (such as Rex). People that don't think as they do can be labeled as idiots and such. But those same people can't label the first group as idiots because there is no possibility of the first group being in the wrong. They are absolutely right, so any criticism of them must be wrong. At least, that is the attitude some people here and many people elsewhere have displayed. [ April 24, 2003, 21:00: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
The truly ironic part of this whole thing in my perspective is that I was not completely convinced of the necessity of this war before it began, though I have tended to sway towards support of it as things about Saddam's regime were revealed. I am also not entirely a supporter of President Bush (though I voted for him as I could not stomach Al Gore), but I find him more of a principled man than most in politics and do not like to hear him badmouthed as if he were the most evil man on the planet. I can think of a number of others that I would put higher on that list. And here I am, spending time I should be doing BizTalk mappings, once again discussing this stuff. My wife has decided for herself that posting to forums is almost like drug addiction. You keep telling yourself that you can stop any time you want, but you want to make just one more post.... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Quote:
Anyway - The huge massive industrial complex for WMD turns out not to be the dreaded "Winebagos of Death" after all but actually "the college students of death" who take the stuff home in their back packs at night and hide them in their refrigerator. Hmm. . . the cynical me thinks . . . I've probably produced more biological agents in MY refrigerator. A majority of the "duped" believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and that's the reason we attacked. The cynical me points to the fact that the Bush administration had been looking for an excuse to attack even before Bush was elected or that Al Qaeda hated Saddam as much as the U.S. No matter -that's not relevant. It's ironic that the only reason for the war - it turns out - has been nation building. The cynical me thinks why were the Republicans so opposed to it almost 2 years ago? Some people consistantly deny the war is about oil - forgetting 1000 of years of history where resources are what wars have always been about. Finally while we've spent our tax dollars giving Iraq to Shiite extremists - NK all of a sudden has Nuclear Bombs and is threatening to use them. What the #@$@ are we doing in Iraq!!!? Fyron - I am sorry that I refuse to believe the propaganda that you seem to like to get spoon fed to you by Shrub. In the light of all this absurdity is it any wonder I haven't been swayed. EDIT: BTW my wife wonders why I post as well. [ April 24, 2003, 21:53: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
a little too personal.... I think we should switch to posting links about information on the topics...
Not get in a debate over personal feelings and all that. Lets leave that alone. Everyone. If you want to talk personal... send a PM. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I apologize if my postings have labelled ALL war-supporters as: bloodthirsty, uneducated, naive, deceived, disingenuous, or any other of a litany of negative characterizations. That was not my intention, as I reserve those labels for a select few http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif However: If large quantities of WMD’s don’t turn up soon, I will reserve the right to use the label “deceived” on those supporting the war on that reason (and of course if the WMD’s are found I will have to endure the humiliation of that label put on me (and the UN inspectors)). |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We have yet to hear of a 'confirmed' WMD site from high up. Those who know what they're doing know this will not be easy. Saddam and his men were not fools, if they wanted to hide something, it will not be easy to find. Hell, unless I am mistaken, things hidden by the Nazis are still turning up in Europe every now and then, and you expect to find Saddam's greatest secret if a few weeks? Quote:
Oh, and be careful with that word 'ironic': you keep using it carelessly and someone might mistake you for Alanis Morissette; the Last thing we need in this thread are semantic flames. Quote:
Quote:
U.S. is going to play that one slow and careful for as long as they can. In case you haven't noticed, Kim Jun-Il has not even _tried_ to present himself or his administration as rational decision makers. My own, half-informed, suspicion is that they want the rest of the world to think they're nuts. Now _that's_ scary. There is nothing the U.S. government can do that could ever be as scary as that. (Quick note, to those of you who may not understand how things like this work, not even a Superpower can invade a country that possesses nuclear weapons. The army of any developed nation may have had little to fear from Saddam's WMD arsenal, we have protection after all, but you cannot move against someone with bleeping nukes.) Quote:
This is what you do every time you say that someone was 'duped'. This is what you do to the world at large when you say that current public opinions are only the result of propaganda. Saying things like this makes it clear that you hold yourself above the common man, that you see yourself as a member to some elite group, that you bear the horrible responsibility, the terrible burden of being the only one who really knows what is going on, that you know, you are so certain, that if only everyone was aware of the things that you are aware of, they would think the same way you do. When you deny someone the right to be accountable for their own thoughts, beliefs, and decisions, you are not only saying they are less of are person, you are specifically saying that you superior to them. This is exactly what I did to you near the top of this post, and exactly what I did when I implied you errors were on account of your youth. Please take note of how that felt and try to keep that in mind the next time you feel like assaulting someone. We hawks know what is going on. We know what we are supporting and why just as well as you do. We have our own reasons for believing what we do. Before you assume something as foolish as "They're just don't know what's really happening", consider that those who disagree with you may be aware of some things that you are not. When we share, we can get somewhere. You are not sharing, you are shoving. To any who care, this is not a flame. This a an honest attempt to correct something I, as a sometime lurker, see as a rapidly developing problem. I will only try this once. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Loser. I think that you have stepped out of line with that Last post. Perhaps you should have sent that in PM. I am trying to get this thread back on topic before it spins away and some good people here decide to leave because of personal attacks. Politics and Religion are heated topics. Things sway but once people release they have said some things that upset someone they attempt to work it out. I think you should re read what you typed there and think about it for a while.
Sorry but that is how I feel after reading your post. I do not want to see this thread get locked down or deleted. There are many intelligent people here on both sides of the fence and in the middle who are posting and helping shape our understanding of all sides of this issue. It is going that way, the way of the lock down. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Loooser,
I'm sorry we live in a Democracy. When I vote I like to be informed. I don't take it for granted that the leaders know something that I don't need to know. I suppose the reason us naive young people don't know things is because our leaders have been lying to us. If they told the truth maybe we wouldn't be having these debates. As far as Republicanism? If it looks like a fish and smells like a fish then it is a fish. A Libertarian for instance is just a Republican without Religion. WMD? Shrub said in his state of the Union that they had proof already!!? Powell showed us pictures of the "Winebagoes of Death": just produce ONE. Bush said that Iraq was producing Nuclear Weapons: I'd like to see one centrifuge! Where is the lab to produce Toxins: no "The College Student of Death" doesn't count. I still don't know why it's a proble to ask for some proof. They had the proof BEFORE they attacked - at least that's what they said. Why don't they just go where they KNEW the stuff was. Iraq, Al Qaeda and 9/11? By attacking me instead of my points you obviously don't have a response to my points. O.k. sorry for using the word "duped". Anyone who believes Iraq and Al Qaeda are linked is just ignorant. Nation Building? I guess I should assume that Shrub was a hypocrite on this point. NK? Your point speaks to mine - that IS a problem. Shouldn't Shrub have spent all that time he spent playing war games coming up with some sort of solution to the REAL problem. I guess your right why ask Shrub to try to solve something difficult. Oil? You say that that the reason we attacked Iraq is that it's one of the "most strategically placed countries in the world." Are you saying this because of it's Antiquities!!!? Umm . . . where was the first place the U.S. went when we invaded? Now. . .who is being naive? Anyway I guess some old people should question more. BTW: What's the definition of Ironic? [ April 25, 2003, 19:03: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I don't think he was reffering to antiquities with strategically placed country. I think it has more to do with maybe the US placing military bases there or some such.
I don't even see what antiquities has to do with strategic anything? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
i·ro·ny
n. pl. i·ro·nies The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain). An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic. Dramatic irony. Socratic irony. Sorry. I just don't see the Irony in that statement. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
And yes, I often (to use an unfairly biased Christian term) play Devil's Advocate. My attempts to get people to actually sit down and think about their positions instead of just spouting off what other people have told them often go unnoticed, but that won't stop me from trying. Quote:
*Term picked specifically for connotations in relation to this discussion. === While Loser's post was written in a fairly offensive manner, it did have several good points in it. It is tiring to see so many people with the belief that they are 100% right, and anyone else that thinks differently is obviously an idiot (maybe not so harsh, but it is the same idea). It isn't possible that other people could be just as right as you are, with equally valid lines of reasoning leading them to their conclusion. Quote:
[ April 25, 2003, 19:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Hrrr. . . I was going to joke about diagraming my irony, but I didn't. I suppose the joke was on me.
Here goes: "It's ironic that the only reason for the war - it turns out - has been nation building. The cynical me thinks why were the Republicans so opposed to it almost 2 years ago?" The irony here is that Shrub ran AGAINST nation building. Now he is nation building. It's arguable that this is situational irony. I was trying to be poetic. Asking "Are we there for the Antiquities?" Is ironic because I am asking a question that I know to be false to point out Losers' rediculous statement. Obviously we are not there for the antiquities, but the only reason Iraq is strategic is because of the oil. From Websters: "a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning - called also Socratic Irony." I guess I wasn't adroit, but again arguably I was being Ironic (at least according to webster). |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Sigh. Well, I'll not try that again.
I would like to point out that the only party of which I have ever been a member is the Democratic, and that I've not ever heard a Republican use the word 'disenfranchise'. Additionally, to avoid confusion, my age is readily available from my Profile. I believe has always been there. I think, for personal defense, that covers everything I'd like covered. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
But that irony fails because his strategic sense wasn't in the antiquities or the oil. I got the sense he was refering to military strategic situations. IE: It would be real nice to have military bases there.
In that sense your irony has no holding whatsoever. The strategic importance or lack of importance of antiquities is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is focused on other strategic elements than oil and antiquities. By saying that antiquities isn't of strategic importance and oil is you still haven't countered the arguments for other forms of strategic importance. IE: Military Strategic importance. Thus I don't see the Irony as the implied irony is irrelevant and thus not ironic. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
What other forms of strategic importance could the middle east have besides oil!!? You think maybe biblical importance? - I don't know.
Anyway - The U.S. is a two party system - Fyron your right other countries have multiple parties that can make a difference. The U.S. doesn't except to take votes away from the middle right or left. Jusk ask Perot, Nader, or T. Roosevelt. Unfortunately, unless we change the constitution it will be that way. The only time (i am going out on a limb here) that a third party broke through was Lincoln. Both parties consistantly pole 40% of the voters so whoever believes that most voters aren't DEMS. or REPS. is wrong - even Mondale got 40% of the vote. It's the wishy washy 20% that's at stake. You can call them what you like. Alright guys - I'm a rube because I use the word ironic loosely and yes Fyron I'm intransigent. So to get back to my original points: Where are WMD that we knew they where there and how come we can't find them if we had proof of their existance? Where's the proof that Al Qaeda and Saddam are linked? Why are we nation building with my tax dollars when Shrub said he wouldn't do that? Why was Iraq - especially in retrospect now that it's admitted that the U.S. knew NK had Nuclear Weapons - more important that NK? What's the strategic importance of Iraq if it's not oil (or its antiquities)? Why did we just make Iraq more dangerous by handing it to the Shiites? [ April 25, 2003, 20:29: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
What other importance... hrmm... as was said. Military importance other than the oil. That is one of the big world hot spots for events. Having another local for rapid deployment of forces wouldn't hurt. Specially if oh... I dunno... let's say another conflict between the Israelis and Arab states started up again. Or perhaps we decide to do something like Somalia again? Or maybe India and Pakistan start walloping each other again?
Oil is no doubt an important reason. But to focus on it to the exclusion of others is just absurd. There are multiple reasons not just one. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
We don't need bases in the middle east. Where do you think we attacked Iraq from? bases in the middle east. Also Rumsfeld said we wouldn't keep troops in Iraq. Are you saying Rumsfeld is a liar?
I guess we could debate the geo political importance of the middle east, but you would have a hard time convincing a lot of people it wasn't oil. [ April 25, 2003, 20:38: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Let's get enumerated.
1. You can reach just about everywhere that's important from Iraq by air. Then look at the countries it borders, look at the countries they border. It even has a port. You just can't ask for anything better. 2. The WDM move, that's why the inspectors couldn't find them. Now the countryside is chaotic, and it is difficult to tell anything. The WMD could have been moved to Syria, could have been buried, could still be on the move. We shall see. 3. There was no proof. Bush never said there was. It was cleverly, almost, kind of implied, but they never out and out said it. The press did, for sure, but they misreport many things. It is easily believable that they were meant ot misreport this. 4. Well, if he told you he wasn't going to do that he lied. Please show me where he told you that, I really would like to see it. 5. What _should_ we do about Korea? We _cannot_ invade them, so we're hardly missing the troops currently in Iraq, etc. We have to wait for their old ally, China, to put pressure on them. Fortuneatly, China wishes North Korea did not have Nuclear Weapons, because it is certain to mean nukes in South Korea, Japan, and other places China doesn't want them. 6. Skipped, see 1. 7. Because it is theirs? Not sure what you're looking for here. Again it is a question of "what can we do?", the only way to keep the Shia sect from having some sort of power is to opress them. Despite many things here said, that really isn't the U.S. game. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
1. U.S. does not have the military freedom it would like in other middle east countries; however, if Iraq ends up like Germany... the possibilities... just wrap your mind around them.
8. We will keep troops there. If we do not, we will leave it in chaos. Maybe he lied, maybe this is a matter of 'implications' again. Please give link. 9. We were already getting a whole lot of oil from Iraq. It's not like we need more. It's not like the new Iraqi government is just going to give it to the U.S. 10. Looks like you might have pulled a point... sorry I missed it. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Oh yes. We did indeed attack them from bases in the middle east. And how many other bases did we have in the middle east that we couldn't use because the nations they were in wouldn't allow it? Having bases there would be one out of many options open for the future.
And as for Oil being the only importance? Are you insinuating that the avaialbility of nuclear arms to Pakistan and India and their ongoing hostilities are unimportant? Or maybe that Somalia was set off by a need for Somali oil? And our support of the nation of Israel is of course based entirely on all the oil wealth the Israelis provide us? Oh... wait. Wasn't part of the whole oil embargo of the 70's and 80's due to our support of Israel? If that was our only motivating factor then shouldn't we have stopped supporting Israel to get our oil? Or invaded some countries then to get our oil? As I said. Oil is no doubt an important factor. But it far from being the ONLY important factor. As for convincing a lot of people. Yes well I could also try and convince a lot of people about religion or what form of government is best. I would probably have a hard time with that. Just because a lot of people do something or believe something doesn't mean it is right, correct, or even accurate. As a wise man once said: Eat poop. Billions of flies can't be wrong. As for Mr. Rumsfeld... well I think we can let the record speak for him. Side Note. I am mostly a Democrat but I definetly hold certain views that would not be considered of the Democrat party, and while I believe that the reasons for this war are wrong I believe doing it was right. As for turning the nation over to Shiites... it hasn't happened yet. And even if it does... ever heard the theory of evolutionary government? Before you can have a democracy you go through autocracy and theocracy. Don't believe it? Just look at the history of Europe. And where did the US get its history lessons if not from Europe? Little baby steps... little baby steps. I am undecided on the issue of WMDs. But let me use this analogy. You walk into your kids room and smell pot and the room is thick with smoke. You know the kid has been smoking pot or someone has in that room. You have the circumstantial evidence that proves it. But do you have the hard evidence of the pot right there in your hands? Do you automatically know where to look? Taking out Iraq right now over NK was important because Iraq had already shown the tendency and ability to both develop and use WMDs. In the past NK has done much the same. But we treated NK very differently. We played it nice and they got nuclear reactors and food and all that good stuff... and now look where we are? We had the UN handle NK and look where that got us? I would think NK would be a good reason for justifing the war with Iraq even against the wishes of the UN. So why don't we take the Iraq stance with NK now? That has already been covered. You can't treat a nation that has nukes the same as one that doesn't. Does Iraq have nukes. I would bet money they don't. Chemical or Bio? Probably. And if not they would be back to making them again as soon as the UN looked away. How do I know? I don't. But history tends to support that view. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
1- 6 That's supposedly not why we invaded Iraq it was to get rid of Saddam and Rumsfeld said we are removing our troops - I'll scour the news if you need me to.
2. - 3. Powell did a whole presentation "proving" the existance of WMD at the U.N.. Also I can look up a whole littany of Shrubisms if you need me to. 4. I am not going to look up the transcripts of the debates with Gore - but he said it there. 5. So ignore NK and attack a third country to make NK even more paranoid - makes sense to me. 7. Well . . . at least your being altruistic. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
You don't send your child to prison or (kill him) because you smell the pot either.
Also - If the Israel and the Arabs get in a war we are not going to intervene and if the Pakistanis and Indians get in a war we are not going to intervene because they will simply blow each other up. And there are better places to go into Africa than Iraq. The only serious embargo happened in the early 70s btw and their hasn't been a serious embargo since then - thank whomever that the Arabs haven't figured that one out. Saddam gave oil contract to non U.S. and British companies btw and it pissed off a lot of Shrub's donors. [ April 25, 2003, 21:14: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
You're right. You don't send your child to prison or kill him if you smell pot. But that is simply because it is pot. If you found the pot you wouldn't send him to prison or kill him either. It is a comparison. Compared. Not equal. I was illustrating the point at no point did I equate the seriousness of finding pot smoke to that of finding WMDs. You wouldn't kill the kid or put him in prison but you wouldn't leave him alone either, and if all you did was say well now we are going to have to search your room and the first time you find his stash... well the next time he just hides it better. And better. And better. You haven't really punished him have you?
Did we at any point punish Saddam and his regime? NO. We punished his people who weren't responsible for it. Finally we have punished him. Did some of his people get hurt? Yes. But how hurt where they without any of our action? At least now they have a chance to turn things around. [ April 25, 2003, 21:35: Message edited by: Cyrien ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
The point though was that Saddam was a danger because he was going to use WMD that he had in his possession and that's how Shrub sold the war. Also there was a huge military industrial complex producing these by the boat load. If Saddam was such a danger to use WMD why weren't they used when he was in his death throws. Please don't say it was because his underling saw the light of reason. Their were plenty of fanatics who would have used them.
The fact that they were not used suggests that they NEVER would have used them not that he was saving them for Bush Sr. bday or something. Saddam is evil, but that's not how the invasion was sold. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Assume he had them and didn't use them. Does that mean he wouldn't have EVER used them? No. He did have them GWI. That is a fact. Did he use them then? No. Why not?
Does he have them now? Maybe. Where any used? No. If he has them why not? There are all sorts of reasons. Imagine the fall out if they were used? If he doesn't use them and he loses... and we can't find where he hid them. What happens world wide to the US reputation? Would that be motivation to not use them? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Look at it like this. He had to know he was going to lose if he stood there by himself. He needs the support of the world on his side. If he uses WMD he doesn't get that at all. Would using WMDs affect the outcome? No. It wouldn't. The coalition forces wouldn't be destroyed by them and wouldn't stop attacking because he used them. Everyone would be against him all at once though. It doesn't make sense for him to use WMDs against the coaltition forces. It does make sense to hide them and hope that no one can find them if you do have them and not use them.
If you do that then even if you lose you may be able to take down your enemy with you by world opinion. Which is exactly what is happening. [ April 25, 2003, 21:45: Message edited by: Cyrien ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I know we can get into hypothetical - but all I can go by is what actually happened. He didn't use them in their worst case scenario so I would rather infer he wouldn't have used them when things were better.
I suppose he might care about world opinion posthumously, but I won't try to get into his head. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Errr... he did use them when things were better.
It's called the Iran Iraq war and lets not forget the Kurds revolting. *edit*Used them there when they could affect the outcome. There is a pattern here. When he thinks he can get an advantage he does. The man is evil and an egomaniac. But I don't think he is stupid. And I'm not getting in his head. I am basing all this on his past actions.*edit* On a side note that is actually what ended the oil embargo as well. They both needed money and both had oil. So they broke the embargo and sold oil. When they broke it there wasn't much reason for other nations to keep on to it either and lose potential profit when it wasn't hurting the target anymore. [ April 25, 2003, 22:03: Message edited by: Cyrien ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
WMD? Even the UN said Iraq had WMD's. What will we have to find (it wont take a week to find things, it will take months, so all the anti war people just hush and wait and see) to prove that they had WMDs? Is there a sliding scale for weapons? If Iraq has radioactive materials that can make a dirty bomb, how much material will make the nay-sayers happy? Is Bio weapons enough to be WMDs? Well if its Small Pox and similar items, maybe that wont be enough since people can still get small pox. Anthrax? Probably not since it was developed by the US (and Russia?). My point, no matter what is found, it will never be enough for the nay-sayers, they will say..."oh BUT you didnt find XXX" (and I don't mean porn, hehe).
Nation Building? My opinion of nation building would be making Iraq another state of the US, and that will never happen. BUT, if nation building is getting rid of a guy that kills millions of his OWN people, jails children ect... then I am for it. We do have to pick our fights though, and force is not always the way to go. I still contend that Saddam didn't give us any choice, after 12 years we finally drew the line and then backed up the consequence. I am sure Saddam felt that he could keep dragging his heels and never thought that Bush and the Coalition would follow through. They did, and now other nations are thinking, "Uh ohh...". That is also a positive, though the nay-sayers don't see it that way. Some people will only respond/respect strength. In some cases we (the US) stopped carrying the "Big Stick", I don't think we need to use it all the time, but if we do once and a while it does make an impression. I remember when my father gave me a spanking, he only did it once, and that is all he ever needed to do, I got the idea. I have thought of Cuba and Castro during this time, the only reason we wouldn't do to Castro that we did to Saddam, is that Castro sat back and never was a threat to the US (other than the missile crisis). Arguably you can say that Cuba don't have oil, true, but Castro didn't go out of his way to support terrorism (well, like Saddam did). NK? I think China will become involved to the point of stifling NK. The Last thing China wants is the surrounding free countries to start Nuking-up to counter the NK blustering. Just my thought so far... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Time for my daily fix. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Quote:
Oddly, though, I know many people who are more fervently Republican than I am, who want nothing to do with Christianity. I also know many Democrats who are as strong or stronger than I in their Christian beliefs. And certainly Fyron, whom you accuse of Republican views would reject the idea of religion (I don't mean to speak for you Fyron, but I think I am safe in this statement http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). I know Republicans who are opposed to the war and Democrats that would have rather nuked Iraq than invade. Generalizing people and their beliefs, and putting them in categories is dangerous business. You will quickly find that people do not fit well into categories. Trying to put them there is demeaning to them. If you would truly be informed, as you say you wish to be, listen to what all people say, and do not mock them if you don't agree with them. They may be wrong, or they may be right, let time sort it out. Nor do I disagree with all of your concerns, especially about the Shi'ites in Iraq, and North Korea's nukes. Where we disagree is in our evaluation of the administration's ability to handle those difficult concerns. Only time will tell who is right. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
He didn't use them because he already gave them to Al Qaeda... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif He knows very well that killing soldiers doesn't win wars, only battles. So I expect Al Qaeda to start a rampage on civilian targets with WMD. Why do you think I never go to Tel Aviv? That, is a WMD terrorist attack waiting to happen. Good thing all my family lives in Haifa (second obvious target http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) I joke about it because there is nothing that can be done about it, other than waging war on terrorism instead of wasting time waging war for oil and rebuilding contracts. Funny thing though, how so many people thing that this war was waged for Israel when in Israel few people wanted this war. The frigging Chicken-Hawk brigade is making Israel look as the benificiary of this war, not openly, but they are doing it. I wonder when are they planning to begin their persecution of Jews. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Powell showed us pictures at the UN of where the WMD were being produced - and this was the evidence used to invade. Why don't they just go there? I don't see why it will take a few days much less a few months.
[ April 25, 2003, 22:57: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Heh. I certainly don't feel the war was fought for Israel. As for the rest of it. I am undecided. I was using those as points in an argument to make a point.
And quite a few people care about world opinion. It was one of the things some people use to justify their terrorism. Not that they would need it, but they use it never the less. [ April 25, 2003, 23:21: Message edited by: Cyrien ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Shrub = Bush. We get it. haha. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif Personaly I find it hard to take someone seriously when they have to resort to petty name calling every other post.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Molly Ivins wrote "Shrub : The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush" - interesting reading and a clever title.
You can get it on Amazon. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.