OT: Rating the President

Preacherman · #1 January 31st, 2003, 08:40 PM

my post is gone where i stated that i don't want to participate in this thread any more, so i'm free again

Quote:

It would seem that the US still has friends in Europe, despite news reports to the contrary.

It was never in question wether the us has friends in europe or not, they have, but friendship is not that we always are your opinion. i am from germany, i do not like bush, i often do not like his politics and i certainly am not for a war without a resolution by the un, but that means not that i do not like americans! i hope you see the differences.

the same probably goes for much of europe, and your london times aticle does not state that around 70% of the brits and about 80% of the polish people... are against a war without the un.

Fyron · #2 January 31st, 2003, 10:00 PM

Do you expect the media to ever give a fair account of anything? They leave facts out of all stories that conflict with what they want to report.

Phoenix-D · #3 January 31st, 2003, 10:18 PM

"the same probably goes for much of europe, and your london times aticle does not state that around 70% of the brits and about 80% of the polish people... are against a war without the un. "

If you read the article, you might notice it never mentions going it alone. According to that, Iraq is in violation of the UN accords and should be invaded because of that.

And if anyone says "give him another chance" if and when these inspections fail..how -many- "another chances" are we talking about here? This isn't the first time this has happened.

Phoenix-D

oleg · #4 February 1st, 2003, 03:36 AM

The problem here is that Irag does not have an underclared weapons of mass destruction. At least, there is no any proof of it. What we have is Bush' rhetoric and empty accusations. Prove me that I am wrong.

Krsqk · #5 February 1st, 2003, 03:41 AM

At stake here is not whether the US will invade Iraq, but whether the UN will be relevant to world politics and opinion. Seventeen times now, they have told Saddam, "You stop that or else!" Some of these "or elses" have enumerated the consequences of not stopping. If they fail to enforce their Chapter VI (i.e., binding) resolutions, then they no longer have any authority. They will be like a parent who nags his child rather than disciplines him. (Apologies to you PC types who don't like the use of the masculine gender for the neuter gender, the way English is meant to be.

)

Not at all a side note, but rather the crucial (and conveniently neglected) fact of the latest resolution: the inspectors aren't there to find WMDs. They're there for Iraq to prove they longer have them. They haven't found any evidence of the destruction of previous stockpiles; they have found unreported weapons; and previously reported/found weapons have been moved from their locations. That alone is "material breach" according to UN Sec. Council Res. 1441, which demands military repercussions.

The inspectors can't be there to hunt down WMDs, and it's ridiculous to expect them to. I get ~10 years to hide stuff in California. You get to pick 108 people to look for it. World opinion demands that you find at least 15% of it to prove that I have it (and even them some won't believe you).

Also interesting: Nancy Pelosi (Senate minority leader) claimed Iraq doesn't have any WMDs, but later said we shouldn't go into Iraq "because Saddam will use chemical and biological weapons on our troops."

I guess when truth is negotiable, anything goes. Ironically, as minority leader, she receives more classified information than all but 3 other members of Congress, so she knows more of the truth than almost anyone (although she can't discuss it in public).

Quote:

The problem here is that Irag does not have an underclared weapons of mass destruction. At least, there is no any proof of it. What we have is Bush' rhetoric and empty accusations. Prove me that I am wrong.

Again, the onus of proof is on Iraq. That is the 15-0 consensus of the Security Council. They haven't even left what was previously found sealed and in the same places. We have found some undeclared weapons. We can't even find the vast majority (~98%) of what was previously declared or found. Iraq continues testing/production of liquid-fueled missiles with range sufficient to strike anywhere in the Mideast and parts of Europe (far in excess of the UN-required 90km). What more do we want? Saddam to give us a hand-written list of all facilities, along with the keys and launch codes? I have a bridge to sell you, then, too.

[ February 01, 2003, 02:19: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

oleg · #6 February 1st, 2003, 06:01 AM

When you accuse somebody of murder, the burden of proof lies on you. Why is it different here ? Because Bush is prosecuter, judge and jury. As to UN relevance, it is a joke. How many times Israel violated UN resolutions and so what ? I have a nugging feeling that in fact it does not matter if Saddam has WMD, Bush wants Saddam' blood and he will get it, UN or no UN.

Phoenix-D · #7 February 1st, 2003, 06:04 AM

"When you accuse somebody of murder, the burden of proof lies on you. Why is it different here ?"

Because this isn't a murder trial. If you want a comparison, try a probation violation. Iraq lost a war and signed a treaty or two dealing with WMDs to end it. It hasn't been living up to that deal. By my logic, that means the treaty is null and the war is still on.

Phoenix-D