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

[rextorres]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rextorres:
THIS president said - unequivocally - he would call for a vote in the UN for war and he didn't - "We need to know where everyone stands up or down" (or something like that). He lied then about that why would he tell the truth now about this!?

I know you can do better than that Rex. I have supported the the President for the most part on the Iraq issue and even I can see some inconsistancies in a few things. But this is what you bring up as an example of him lying? Please. There would have been a vote if the French had not expressly stated they would veto it. If you don't understand what that means for UN purposes a security council veto stops a resolution before it even comes to a vote. So you can't blame Bush for their being no vote on a second resolution.

Geoschmo

---

Well I wanted to stay on topic:

He lied about going AWOL.
He lied about being arrested for drunk driving.
He stole money doing insider trading when he was with Harken oil (don't say it's old news the Last president was hounded about white water and the time frames were equivalent).

Those are just some things off the top of my head. Some people were trying to make Bush out as some honourable character when he is a politician looking to get elected.

[ May 13, 2003, 02:47: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Narrew]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
narrew it is not about peoples feelings towards bush.

I disagree, at least in the States most people that are against action in Iraq are Bush haters, partisan politics if you will. The same thing happened with the Clinton haters. Outside the USA, I cant say since I am biased


Some of the things it is about is


here is my SPIN

International law-- Yep, Saddam broke it for over 12 years, and time might well tell that France, Germany and Russia broke International law by selling prohibited items to Iraq. Oh, and dont forget the UNs involvement (or lack there of).

deceit-- Yep, Saddam deceived us for many years, but more importantly he deceived his own people by refusing them food and other things. We can add deceit from the above countries and the UN, time will tell on that (of course people will believe that the US had it planted) maybe that is a reason why they were against the Coalition for fear what they would find that would incriminate them.

War-- Yep, people forgot Saddam started it first, you all do remember Kuwait, and there was never an end to that, Saddam had to follow the rules which he never did.

Incompetence-- Yes the UN was Incompetent, and we will find more of what they refused to see (or deal with). I am not anti UN, but think they need to follow through with the resolutions they pass, and I am not talking about just Iraq situation. Of course if the UN did their job, the US wouldn't have to be the bad guy.

WMD-- ok, ok I still say we need to wait. But I am sure the trailers of chemical processing plants we for something other than what we in the US think it is. Maybe they were actually roving baby milk factories.

International alliances-- See the above comment about the UN. Did anyone notice that the leaders of the former Soviet Union countries supported the Coalition (the ones that were recently admitted to the UN). I think those leaders know exactly what it was like to live in a country where the people have no power/life. Don't tell me they were coerced to give lip service to the US, they would have benefited more by not getting the EU mad at them.

As I finish this, I realize that many people have different views on this situation. Will we all agree, no way, if we did, everyone would love us Americans. The nice thing is we don't seem to get into name calling ect... Heck, I even cut slack for them French Canadians that don't agree with us. J/K

Ok, now all lets have a group hug!!!

[Cyrien]

*group hug*

[tbontob]

Narrew, some of the stuff you have talked about, I agree with and some I don't.

But why is the U.N. incompetent?

IMO, it is basically because of the veto power wielded by certain nations...won't say who they are because we know who they are.

Give it a secure tax base with every nation having a right to vote on a democratic basis according to its population, then issues will be decided and you will have an organization with the capacity to act.

This is not strange to us, because our governments are organized this way.

And China will probably agree to it. But I can see the U.S. government doing everything in its power to prevent it from happening.

Anybody care to guess why?

[geoschmo]

Tbontob, that idea is just ludicrous. If every nation in the UN had a representative form of government, perhaps. But why would I as a citizen of a free and democratic (Sorry Fyron ) soceity give control over myself and my affairs to a hand full of dictators under the auspices of UN authority? They aren't held accountable to their own populations, how could they be to me?

Geoschmo

[tbontob]

When the thirteen colonies rebelled you had much the same discussion going on. Why exchange one dictator (the King of England) for another dictator (a central government)?

As it happened, the central government idea prevailed, a stable tax system secured, representative government installed and you have the U.S. of A.

The same thing can happen here if we have the foresight.

But O.K. for the sake of the discussion, let's exclude dictatorial governments.

Why would the U.S. government do everything in its power to prevent a "U.N. of Democracies" with a stable tax base and vote by representation?

[Fyron]

One unified world government would not be a good idea at all. If there are no external enemies (not necessarily in open conflict or anything like that) for the government to concentrate on, it turns on its own people. This is an inescapable fact of life on earth.

[ May 13, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by tbontob:
But O.K. for the sake of the discussion, let's exclude dictatorial governments.

Why would the U.S. government do everything in its power to prevent a "U.N. of Democracies" with a stable tax base and vote by representation?

Well, for one thing, why do you make the U.S. out to be the lone country in opposition to this idea? Isn't the American Hegemony, or "Pax Americana" the big thing everyone, even our allies, are worried about these days? How is this different? Instead of the American hegemony it's the UN hegemony. I seriously doubt you would get a single nation, even democratic ones to agree to this idea. It's that bad of an idea Tbontob. So since it's your idea, why don't you tell me why Canada would be opposed to it? And if all the Democratic nations on earth became one "super country", wouldn't the non-democratic countries be that much more afraid of it?

Geoschmo

[tbontob]

All it takes is a visionary.

If the U.S. didn't have it's visionaries you wouldn't have the U.S. of A.

Yes, there would be serious discussion about it in Canada, both pro and con, but I don't believe that Canada would be as determined in it's opposition to it's creation.

Care to guess the reason why?

[geoschmo]

No, why don't you just tell us why Tbontob?