[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. [Archive] - Page 5

rextorres

April 17th, 2003, 12:57 AM

Well if you believe that 3000 Jewish senior citizens decided to vote for someone who admires Hitler then no I couldn't make that assertion. Besides I was talking about mandates and states rights.

Also if you believe in the spirit of Democracy then intention should matter.

BTW - you did call people "whiners" and used terms like "fair and square" for questioning the election that implies some superiority. Unless you don't want me to take what you write seriously.

[ April 17, 2003, 00:05: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Cyrien

April 17th, 2003, 01:09 AM

WEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..........

Well... that was fun. Much funner than trying to argue political view points that I would be willing to bet aren't going to be changed either way. I mean really... haven't we all heard all of these arguments at least a dozen times already?

I somehow doubt that after 3 years someone is amazingly going to come up with either a Gore or Bush argument that changes everyones minds. And what if someone did? Would it change the fact that Bush is president?

I don't much like Bush. I would have liked Gore to win. I think Gore could have handled this 9/11 and Iraq situation. I think something was fishy with the state of Florida voting. I have no more evidence than all that which has already been presented, which is at best circumstantial.

Wasn't this all supposed to be about Iraq and the politics around that? Excepting a purely hypothetical view of what things MIGHT have been like what point does the Bush/Gore election arguments serve?

How many Posts does that make for me?

[ April 17, 2003, 00:11: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

DavidG

April 17th, 2003, 01:19 AM

To bring it somewhat back on topic can anyone explain this quote taken from the BBC

"diplomats at the UN predict a tough round of negotiations in the Security Council if the US pushes for the lifting of sanctions."

Why the heck would anyone at the UN want to continue the sanctions now??. The only reason I can think off of the top of my head is that since the US wants it, it must be evil.

Fyron

April 17th, 2003, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
Well if you believe that 3000 Jewish senior citizens decided to vote for someone who admires Hitler then no I couldn't make that assertion. Besides I was talking about mandates and states rights.

Also if you believe in the spirit of Democracy then intention should matter.More useless BS propaganda. Bush does not admire Hitler. Please stop making up lies (or repeating lies that your idols have said).

BTW - you did call people "whiners" and used terms like "fair and square" for questioning the election that implies some superiority. Unless you don't want me to take what you write seriously.It does not imply moral superiority, which is what you said I was claiming to have. It implies "superiority" only in the sense of speaking the truth and not lies.

Cyrien

April 17th, 2003, 01:23 AM

That does sound kinda wacky. Maybe the BBC just isn't on top of it this time?

[ April 17, 2003, 00:23: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Cyrien

April 17th, 2003, 01:24 AM

The reference to 3000 jewish seniors voting for an admirer of Hitler was not a refernce to Bush but another 3rd party candidate.

Fyron

April 17th, 2003, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by Cyrien:
The reference to 3000 jewish seniors voting for an admirer of Hitler was not a refernce to Bush but another 3rd party candidate.Ohh... well again, the ballots were not confusing. They were all clearly marked, and had very clear instructions on them. It would require not reading what they said to vote for the wrong candidate. Anyone that took the time to understand what they were doing would not have voted for a candidate that they did not mean to vote for.

Master Belisarius

April 17th, 2003, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
To bring it somewhat back on topic can anyone explain this quote taken from the BBC

"diplomats at the UN predict a tough round of negotiations in the Security Council if the US pushes for the lifting of sanctions."

Why the heck would anyone at the UN want to continue the sanctions now??. The only reason I can think off of the top of my head is that since the US wants it, it must be evil.No way! Is only to sanction the US!! Right now, Iraq is the state number 51! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Just kidding, just kidding!!

rextorres

April 17th, 2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QUOTE]It does not imply moral superiority, which is what you said I was claiming to have. It implies "superiority" only in the sense of speaking the truth and not lies.Just some poetic license. Everything I said seems to me to be factual where was I lying?

geoschmo

April 17th, 2003, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QUOTE]More useless BS propaganda. Bush does not admire Hitler. Please stop making up lies (or repeating lies that your idols have said).
Rex wasn't saying Bush admired Hitler, he was talking about Buchanon. Argue that point if you want. It's probably a bit of an exageration, but Buchanon does have some radical positions on things. Listening to him sometimes makes me feel like a liberal, so you know he's out there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron, I think you might need to chill out a bit.

Geoschmo

Thermodyne

April 17th, 2003, 03:41 AM

Since this is degenerating into a Bush vs. Gore event, you guys should do your home work first.
It was not BillyBob that was on the Republican hit list. Go back and check the congressional
staff list from the Watergate hearings. Power players in DC have long memories, and are seldom know to set aside a grudge. And DC playbacks can develop into a hell all of their own. Mr. Gore was in a catch 22. He needed to distance himself from a president who got caught lying to his people, but in so doing would have left a large part of his inherited base behind also.

As to the election, the electoral college has been part of American Presidential elections for a
very long time. For a looser to challenge it after an election would indicate that the candidate was particularly unsuited to hold the office. As for the challenging of the count, many candidates have been advised to challenge results in the past, but with one exception, all of them felt that the good of the country was more important. All but one choose unity over litagation.

[ April 17, 2003, 02:42: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Fyron

April 17th, 2003, 06:42 AM

Fyron, I think you might need to chill out a bit.Well sorry if I have little respect for people when they just spit out the same old tired propaganda...

I think you people need to realize that I am not a Republican nor much of a Bush supporter...

dogscoff

April 17th, 2003, 11:44 AM

f**ks up in order to make money.
(snip)
...monster that has to be stopped...
...parallels drawn between Bush and 1930s Hitler...
...the US was bound to go on the rampage...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OMG do you actually belive this??
Yes, and you'd better believe I'm not the only one. I'm not some radical islamic fundamentalist, either- I'm a pretty normal, liberal-minded European guy with a home and a job and a regular life.

I admit I haven't read all 95 pages of this thread, but I really can't imagine a defensible argument saying that Bush and Hitler are moral equivalents.
There was an excellent article posted about a month ago which summarised the similarities. It was frightening. I'll try to dig it out but it won't be easy.
EDIT: Finallly, I found it. Click here for Bush/ Hitler comparison. (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm)

The main similarities are in Bush's (and Blair's) use of a specific terrorist incident to create a non-specific perceived threat, and generate an atmosphere of fear and distrust among the public, which in turn allows them to go on bombing sprees abroad, violate human rights (illegal arrest/ detention) and introduce anti-freedom / anti-privacy legislation in the name of "national security".

but as I said motivation is not the key issue.I think motivation is absolutely the key issue. You are being led by a man who is prepared to start a war and cause thousands of deaths in order to increase his own personal profits, and that doesn't bother you? It should be your interests he is serving, not his own.

2) The ACTIONS of the US now and throughout history is what needs to be judged--
Yes, the ACTIONS of the US. The actions of the USA (and UK) since Bush came to power have been catastrophic.

From Colin Powell: "It's why we participate in all of these great international organizations."
HA! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power.
Again, HA! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Will the US "take over" Iraqi oil production and reap vast wealth from them?
...

Oil $$: the Iraqi oil $$ will be used to rebuild that country, and may not be sufficient to do so.
It's more subtle than simply going in and stealing Iraq's wealth. It has long been understood by most powermongers that invading, conquering and annexing other countries is politically incorrect, and risky business indeed.

Iraqi oil will be used by Iraqi people to rebuild Iraq, yes. That was always the plan. What is now coming to light is that nearly all that rebuilding (an estimatedd 100billion dollars' worth) will be contracted out to US companies with very close links to Bush and his cronies. Oh, and apparently they've been planning for all this since before 9/11. Now can you see why I'm so cynical?

But you seem to have ignored my earlier question about the direction of British politics. Do you really think Britain is more strongly allied with Europe than the US?
Culturally, I think the Brits are closer to Europe than the US, so we ought to be heading that way. Unfortunately, because of the language thing, most people here don't realise that and lean toward the US. Blair has always tried to show himself as pro-european, but now he has his head up Bush's arse. Of course the two shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but really I think they are.

I have no idea where Blair will go or what he'll do next. I used to think I had an idea about what he wants and what's going on in his head, but his motivations are a mystery to me now. He's constantly contradicting himself, saying one thing while doing another... add to that the cocoon of spin and bull**** he has woven about himself and he is utterly opaque. He won't ever be getting my vote again. (And I'll never vote tory- too corrupt.)

Personally I think the best thing for this country would be to extend the boundaries of London a couple hundred miles north and west so that Ken Livingstone (Mayor of London) is in charge of the entire country. He has his flaws but I believe he is at least uncorrupted and working for the good of the people he represents. That's the best you can ask from a politician, and the one thing you never seem to get...

(The French bashing in the UK was certainly not any less than it was here.)
I would disagree with that, unless the US franch-bashing was very mild.

Maybe the motivations for it are wrong. But you can do the right things for the wrong reasons, you just have to make sure those wrong reasons don't taint the process.
Impossible. As soon as you do anything like that for the wrong reasons, the process becomes irrevocably tainted. Motivation is everything.

[ April 17, 2003, 11:31: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

tesco samoa

April 17th, 2003, 02:53 PM

From Daily Kos

Syria countermoves, scores against US
The US continues its bizarre on-again, off-again war of words against Syria. Seriously, do a Google News search for "Syria" and "US", and get headlines like:

No Plans for war on Syria: US
US renews its attack on Syria
US 'would enter Syria for Saddam'
US will not cross Syrian border to hunt Saddam
So who the hell knows who will come out ahead what is obviously a power-struggle at the top of the Bush Administration.

But Syria is more self-assured than Saddam's sanction-weakend Iraq -- not driven by ethnic divisions, not in violation of UN resolutions, possessing a strong and relatively modern military, effective control of various battle-tested milita/terrorist Groups, strong support from Russia and Iran, a reluctant and suddenly gun-shy UK, and the sudden de facto leadership of the Arab world (a position Syria obviously relishes).

And while Iraq wielded the propaganda tool clumsily, Syria is proving a far better foe. It's latest move, tactically brilliant, is to introduce a Security Council resolution calling for the elimination of all WMDs in the Middle East.

The move comes as some in the US side scream about Syria's alleged WMDs. Thus Syria's move is nothing short of genius. If the US is truly serious about ridding the Middle East of WMDs, it should have no problem endorsing a resolution that would compell Syria to disarm. Right?

Wrong. The resolution would have the (intentional) effect of forcing Israel to surrender its nuclear arsenal -- a course of action Israel would never accept. And the US, Israel's most loyal ally, will thus be forced to veto the resolution.

So picture this -- the US vetoing a resolution calling for the banning of all WMDs from the Middle East. In one fell swoop, Syria has negated the charges of WMDs against it, exposed the US's hypocrisy on WMDs (our allies can have them, everyone else can't), solidified its leadership of the Arab world, and forced the US to veto a seemingly common sense resolution, after bLasting France and Russia for threatening vetoes on Iraq.

It's clear that this administration has zero ability to wage a competent foreign policy. We may be able to wage war, but even that has its limits.

Don't think the links made it... Oh well....

tesco samoa

April 17th, 2003, 03:07 PM

interesting article

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=397925

Read it with a grain of salt.

tesco samoa

April 17th, 2003, 03:19 PM

Hey Dogscoff perhaps (PNAC) website will read like My Struggle 80 years from now..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

primitive

April 17th, 2003, 03:46 PM

Tesco,
First post: LOL great one.
The ability of the GWB administration to paint themselves into a corner is remarkable.

Second post: Even with a large spoonfull of salt, that article has some valuable lessons in it.
Even if everything goes as planned (assuming there is a plan) and an new "democratic" Iraqi goverment is put in place, there will be millions of Iraqi who have good reasons to hate the US. There are many reasons, like loved ones killed, businesses and homes destroyed or loss of power and status for those who benefited from the old regime. It will be easy picking for those who are recruiting terrorists in Iraq for decades to come. I fear this war will not be remembered as a war against terrorism, but as a great boost to it.

dogscoff

April 17th, 2003, 04:28 PM

Just out of interest I did a google search for PNAC+"mein kampf".

Got some interesting results, although everything on the first page seems to be quoted from the same source.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=PNAC+%22mein+kampf%22

---
Edit: fixed link

[ April 17, 2003, 15:56: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Cyrien

April 17th, 2003, 06:13 PM

Impossible. As soon as you do anything like that for the wrong reasons, the process becomes irrevocably tainted. Motivation is everything.Then I suppose that everything that humans has ever done is tainted, which would go a long way to explaining the world and its conditions.

Do you believe that anyone in a position of power does anything without some personal gain?
The argument could even be made that all people perform all actions with something to gain.

Saints and the like? Theres is the ultimate selfish motivation. Do good and get the ultimate reward, or do bad and get the ultimate punishment. Heaven vs Hell. What choice do you make?

Also there are social pressures at work. If you do good, people admire that if you do bad they don't and may even start to hate you.

I cannot accept the position that motivation is everything. If that is true then some truly horrific acts that were done for "good purposes" are acceptable. Motivation being everything holds forth the motto that the Ends always justify the means. That leads to a taint and corruption of the goal.

In my world action always speaks louder than words, or thought.

To sum it all up to do the good thing for the wrong reason is far better than to do the wrong thing for the right reason.

As for Bush and Hitler... don't make me laugh.
You want to talk terrorist attacks... ok. Show that Bush was the mastermind of 9/11 and then I might accept a parrallel there. I could go on and on like this but it just isn't worth it.

I most assuredly do not support Bush. But demonizing him (as comparisons of him and Hitler most assuredly do) is neither accurate nor usefull. If I wanted to I could draw up a list of accurate similarities between Hitler and just about every world leader currently out there and almost all of the past U.S. presidents. Violations of human rights? Using a major event as an excuse for something? Please. Don't be so naive. There are literally thousands if not millions of examples of world leaders of every walk of life doing just that on one scale or another.

I think this will most likely be my Last post to this topic. Not much point in arguing over something that so many people already have their mind made up about. Same reasons I don't generally argue religion.

Wardad

April 17th, 2003, 06:26 PM

Get the Iraqi 'Most-Wanted' Deck of Playing Cards.

http://www.greatusaflags.com/

[ April 17, 2003, 17:32: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Baron Munchausen

April 17th, 2003, 09:20 PM

Yes, Hitler is everyone's favorite demon these days. There is some validity in comparing the program set forth in Mein Kampf with the PNAC papers, but the additional baggage of Hitler's outright depravity makes people not already convinced that Bush is evil unwilling to consider the comparison. It would be better to compare him to saner, if equally ruthless and efficient, conquerors and manipulators. Bismark, who built up 19th century Germany from the base of Prussia example -- or Frederick II ('the Great') who built up Prussia as a military power a century earlier -- if we are sticking to Germans. But of course the Germans have no monopoly on this sort of personality. They were just conveniently close enemies over the Last few centuries and so are remembered more readily. The two French examples that come immediately to mind were more opportunists than 'methodical plotters' -- Napoleon and his relative Napoleon III. But then there is the 'Sun King' Louis IV who wanted all the royal houses of Europe united under his throne. Going back a bit further in history provides lots of European rulers of the same stripe as the corporate Robber Barons that currently form the ruling US oligarchy.

We've had more than a few US Presidents of the same sort as GWB, you know. The people who reach that office are almost always the servants of the Robber Barons if not members of that class themselves, as GWB is. We have been regularly invading various nations in Central American all through the previous century, usually to protect business interests. McKinley found a convenient excuse for the Spanish War in 1898 through the 'fortunate accident' of the Maine. Remember the Maine? Spain was a decrepit remnant of an empire and easily defeated, of course. We got our first over-seas colonies out of that war, Cuba and the Phillipines. Somehow or other Cuba slipped away. I don't recall how that occured. And Hawaii was annexed around the same time though I forget the exact date. The native government had been over-thrown by corporate invaders who wanted their fruit plantations to be under US jurisdiction. A few years later Teddy Roosevelt conveniently had a fleet standing by to support Panama's declaration of independence from Colombia so he could build that canal. A somewhat 'grander' motive than protecting fruit plantations or rubber plantations or strip mines, I guess, but still no more legitimate than Britain would have been in supporting the South during the Civil War to ensure cotton supplies for their industries.

So Bush wielding US military power to extend corporate power is actually not at all unusual as US Presidents go. We've just grown used to the Cold War posture of 'defending the free world' and forgotten what the US government has historially been most concerned with -- siezing territory and resources to insure profits.

[ April 17, 2003, 20:23: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

geoschmo

April 17th, 2003, 09:29 PM

Baron, you left out the part about the US being nothing but occupied territory stolen from the Native Americans. If we want to be technical I suppose the only territory the US has that they didn't take from someone else is the lunar surface. We have a legitimate claim to that I suppose since we were the first to land actual people there (Not just robotic probes) and noone else has been there since. I guess there is room there for all 400 million of us. TIme to relocate...

Cyrien

April 17th, 2003, 11:33 PM

I second that motion! Let's all of us U.S. People leave this planet and take the Moon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif After that we can do some legit expansions to the rest of the planets. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

raynor

April 18th, 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
[QB]Wrong. The resolution would have the (intentional) effect of forcing Israel to surrender its nuclear arsenal -- a course of action Israel would never accept. And the US, Israel's most loyal ally, will thus be forced to veto the resolution.
I'm not so sure about that. I'm confident the United States would find some way of passing such a resolution but exempting Israel.

DavidG

April 18th, 2003, 02:46 AM

Am I the only one that is getting a bit tired of hearing people say "what about Israel's WMD's"
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there are many differences between Israel and Iraq or even Syria. Like a) they are a stable democaracy, b) the have a proven track record of 'using' WMD's as a deterent only, c) they do not openly sponser Jewish terrorists in their neighbouring states, d) they have never launched a war against their neighbours for the sole purpose of destroying that nation. e) they are surrounded by states that would like to see them annialated (and have tried that several times).
I'm sure the list could go on and on.

Some1

April 18th, 2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
Am I the only one that is getting a bit tired of hearing people say "what about Israel's WMD's"
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there are many differences between Israel and Iraq or even Syria. Like a) they are a stable democaracy, b) the have a proven track record of 'using' WMD's as a deterent only, c) they do not openly sponser Jewish terrorists in their neighbouring states, d) they have never launched a war against their neighbours for the sole purpose of destroying that nation. e) they are surrounded by states that would like to see them annialated (and have tried that several times).
I'm sure the list could go on and on.a) They have a democracy... but democracies are not "stable" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif , dictatorships are stable...
Thats why i do not really believe GWB wants a democracy there.

b) i have no knowledge about if they used WMD.

c) This is your opinion. To palistine (& a lot of other) people the gouverment itself is terrorist (wrong).

d) true, but the making of the state israel was a bit different then "normal"... I don't know what would happen if Native Americans would take a part of the USA (like....texas) and that US would do nothing against it (Same as everywhere on the world for that matter)... Difficult to judge.

e) That is not the general goal anymore. Only those extremists want Israel dead... just like those extremist jews (who do nothing but read the bible all day) want all those palistine dead.
I "think" that if you ask the normal people in the region they just want peace... (Not those extremists that only get airtime, because they are more interesting to film)

R

[ April 18, 2003, 08:18: Message edited by: Some1 ]

Fyron

April 18th, 2003, 09:58 AM

a) They have a democracy... but democracies are not "stable" , dictatorships are stable...
Thats why i do not really believe GWB wants a democracy there. Let's see... US has oldest democracy in the world. US is one of the most stable nations in the world. Hmm... what conclusion can be drawn... certainly not democracy is inherently unstable...

Some1

April 18th, 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Let's see... US has oldest democracy in the world. US is one of the most stable nations in the world. Hmm... what conclusion can be drawn... certainly not democracy is inherently unstable...[/QB]Is that so? I see RADICAL policy changes in just 3-4 years... (and not only becuz of 9-11), since GWB came to office.

That's not stable... IMHO

R.

raynor

April 18th, 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Some1:
Is that so? I see RADICAL policy changes in just 3-4 years... (and not only becuz of 9-11), since GWB came to office.

That's not stable... IMHO

R.Like what?

Thermodyne

April 18th, 2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Some1:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Let's see... US has oldest democracy in the world. US is one of the most stable nations in the world. Hmm... what conclusion can be drawn... certainly not democracy is inherently unstable...Is that so? I see RADICAL policy changes in just 3-4 years... (and not only becuz of 9-11), since GWB came to office.

That's not stable... IMHO

R.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>It was 8 of the Last 10 years that were the anomaly. The so called �Return to Camelot� put us
right in the cross hairs, just like the first one did. Only difference was that the opposition was
not a super power this time. The rest of the world sees a kinder more gentle America as weak.
And they make their policy accordingly.

tesco samoa

April 18th, 2003, 07:22 PM

Interesting side bit...

6 nations is the 2nd oldest democracy on the planet.

First would be Iceland.

And I believe England would be up there as well with the Habeas Corpus Act ( 1679)

There is a place in or near india ummm Mal something that has a very old democracy as well.

Oldest European Democracy... Poland

Fyron

April 18th, 2003, 07:51 PM

The Iroquis are hardly a surviving nation.

I don't know about Iceland, but if it has been a democracy for a long time, it would be another example of the stability of democracy...

England doesn't really count as a democracy for most of its history because its parliament was made up of the nobility, with no general elections.

Master Belisarius

April 18th, 2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Interesting side bit...

6 nations is the 2nd oldest democracy on the planet.

First would be Iceland.

And I believe England would be up there as well with the Habeas Corpus Act ( 1679)

There is a place in or near india ummm Mal something that has a very old democracy as well.

Oldest European Democracy... Polandhttp://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Some hours ago, I sent a mail to Fyron talking about this matter! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

April 18th, 2003, 08:16 PM

Ok... if it is not technically the oldest, the US government is old in comparison to other current governments around the world. It has been around for centuries, and has never once collapsed (after the articles of federation were done with, of course). The US Civil War doesn't count for this, cause the Federal government kept going strong when the southern states seceeded from the union. And, there was a presidential election during the middle of the US Civil War, which goes to show that the democratic ideals where not squelched in time of danger. That would be another sign of stability.

[ April 18, 2003, 19:20: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Master Belisarius

April 18th, 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok... if it is not technically the oldest, the US government is old in comparison to other current governments around the world. It has been around for centuries, and has never once collapsed (after the articles of federation were done with, of course). The US Civil War doesn't count for this, cause the Federal government kept going strong when the southern states seceeded from the union. And, there was a presidential election during the middle of the US Civil War, which goes to show that the democratic ideals where not squelched in time of danger. That would be another sign of stability.I think your point about democracy and stability is valid, and USA is a good example.
For this reason I sent a mail!

DavidG

April 18th, 2003, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Oldest European Democracy... PolandHuh Poland?? Does that 'brief' period during the cold war were they didn't have elections for 6o years not count?

BTW who knew my 'stable democracy' comment would send this OT thread on another tangent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

tesco samoa

April 18th, 2003, 09:03 PM

bah that post was not to put down America's Democracy or its long standing tradition. I agree with Fyrons Post 100 %

It was a tid bit of information I though you guys and gals would like.

Read it for what it is not what you want to make it.

Fyron

April 18th, 2003, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Oldest European Democracy... PolandHuh Poland?? Does that 'brief' period during the cold war were they didn't have elections for 6o years not count?

BTW who knew my 'stable democracy' comment would send this OT thread on another tangent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <hr /></blockquote>Better than the continuous stream of BS propaganda that it was before...

MegaTrain

April 18th, 2003, 10:02 PM

Wow, people agreeing in THIS thread?? Amazing.

rextorres

April 18th, 2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Oldest European Democracy... PolandHuh Poland?? Does that 'brief' period during the cold war were they didn't have elections for 6o years not count?

BTW who knew my 'stable democracy' comment would send this OT thread on another tangent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <hr /></blockquote>Better than the continuous stream of BS propaganda that it was before...<hr /></blockquote>When someone doesn't agree with me I think it's propaganda too.

Anyway reading all this talk of Democracy in America makes me think of an 8th grade civics class. It's arguable for instance that the Civil War was really a failure of Democracy.

America is really a Plutocracy - if you were to look at the bank accounts of Bush's cabinet or most of the members of congress it would be self-evident. Also Their are plenty of examples of successful long lived states that were not Democracies. One thing they all do have in common is a strong legal system. I can give numerous examples.

Some1

April 19th, 2003, 12:45 AM

Lol, all the comments http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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

Countries like Iceland have not different ethnic Groups like Iraq... You cannot compare it.

And 'most' old democracies were only democratic for a certain sort of people.... Gipsies, black people, woman... and like were often excluded.

But to make my point (and make it less OT).... If iraq would be a democracy
Inhabitants:
55% arabic shi'it
25% arabic soennit
15% kurds
5% Christian, others

Ok, Irak 'always' was ruled by soennit leaders.
When there is a democracy this changes suddenly. I think a lot of people that are from the soennit side would not agree to that, cause this changes the attitude of Irak more to Iran.
This Base is not a good foundation for a 'stable' Democracy in my humble honest opinion....

What do you think?

R.

[ April 18, 2003, 23:53: Message edited by: Some1 ]

DavidG

April 19th, 2003, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by Some1:
Lol, all the comments http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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

Countries like Iceland have not different ethnic Groups like Iraq... You cannot compare it.
Yea there are stable democracies like Israel's which was my point in the first place.

As far as comparing the stability of dictatorships to democracies well forget Iceland. What about Canada? We have a very large French speaking province and we seem to manage. Got any examples of a stable dictatorship?? Do they ever Last longer than the life of the dictator?

You also seem to have a strange definition of the word 'Radical' The US is hardly radically different now from when Clinton was president. Do you know what happens when a new leader takes over in a dictatorship? I suspect that would be radical and involve a lot of killing and instability.

DavidG

April 19th, 2003, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by Some1:
[QB]BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.
[QB]'technically not stable'?? What exatly do you mean by this. Seems to be pretty stable where I live. When we get a new Prime Minister all the civil servents keep their jobs, the provincial goverments remain in place, the local governments don't change, none of our military leaders get terminated and replaced with the prime minsters half brother, etc etc. Seems pretty stable to me.

Edit: Gees looks like this thread has claimed another 5 star rating. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Who knew calling a democracy stable would piss people off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ April 19, 2003, 01:44: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Fyron

April 19th, 2003, 03:33 AM

Rex:
When someone doesn't agree with me I think it's propaganda too.
I was referencing nearly every post made in this thread, actually. Maybe 10 or so (that aren't vacuous Posts) aren't rife with propaganda for one side or another (well, except for the few tangent discussions like this current one about democracies...). Those are the few that just contain real facts, and nothing more. It has nothing to do with "not agreeing with me." Please don't insert words into my statements that I didn't say any more. It is tiring.

Also Their are plenty of examples of successful long lived states that were not Democracies. One thing they all do have in common is a strong legal system. I can give numerous examples. That isn't disagreeing with any Posts made in this thread so far, as all we were talking about was whether democratic forms of government were stable or not. No one has claimed that all non-democratic governments are unstable or anything like that.

Some1:
Ok, there ARE 'stable' democracies, BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.
Yes it is. Democracies are inherently stable forms of government because they are designed to promote (and force) "regime" changes at regular intervals. So, there are no sudden upheavals, no coups, no seizures of power. Those only happen in countries where the democracy was just formed after long periods of tyrannical governments, where the old powers were not sufficiently neutered, so they still have the strength to reclaim power. Otherwise, the democracy endures. Saying that this sort of thing is an example of the instability of democracy is wrong, becuase there never really was much of a democracy to begin with in those countries.

Ok, Irak 'always' was ruled by soennit leaders.
When there is a democracy this changes suddenly. I think a lot of people that are from the soennit side would not agree to that, cause this changes the attitude of Irak more to Iran.
This Base is not a good foundation for a 'stable' Democracy in my humble honest opinion....

What do you think? The US has so many various ethnic Groups in it from all over the world that it makes that example sort of meaningless. The government of the US changes as "drastically" as in your example all the time. Noone flees the country because of it. There was no mass emmigration of Democrats from the country when Bush won in 2000. There was no mass emmigration of Republicans from the US when Clinton won in 1992 or 1996. The UK has a number of vastly distinct ethnic Groups in it. It doesn't have any such problems either. Neither does nearly any other democratic country in the world.

Ed:
[QUOTE] Edit: Gees looks like this thread has claimed another 5 star rating. Who knew calling a democracy stable would piss people off./QUOTE] This is why the Ratings system should be removed... I suggest you (and everyone else) disable your rating.

[ April 19, 2003, 02:46: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

raynor

April 19th, 2003, 03:51 AM

Rather than arguing whether or not democracy is "technically stable", wouldn't it be more useful to argue whether or not the United States is really a democracy?

In a democracy, "supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" (Webster.com).

Again, according to Webster, an oligarchy is a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.

Given the number of folks in this thread arguing that we primarily went to war just to line the pocket books of GWB's cronies, I'm surprised those same folks aren't arguing that we really don't have a democracy at all. Rather, we have an oligarchy.

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

Roanon

April 19th, 2003, 03:57 AM

I think you need to agree on a proper definition of "stable" first before you can continue this thread.

Seems there are differing views about stability. Even a country where the head of state is assassinated and replaced by his murderer every year, maybe even accompanied by a short civil war of 3-4 months, can technically considered to be "stable" if this happens on a regular, stable basis http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

@raynor: certain standards applied, there is NO real democracy in the whole world, except maybe in Switzerland http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ April 19, 2003, 03:01: Message edited by: Roanon ]

geoschmo

April 19th, 2003, 04:05 AM

America is not an oligarchy. I won't pretend there aren't problems, but they aren't systemic. The people have the the right to representation and even personal involvment in the governmental systems to a degree not thinkable in any other country. We have class differences, but they are for the most part self imposed and enforced. And movement between classes is possible here like nowhere else in the world, or in all of history. The problem is though that the majority of the people choose not to exersize their rights. They don't get involved in their government, or at least get educated about the issues. And they don't hold their representatives responsible when they take actions contrary to their wishes and interests.

EDIT: So in effect our system may currently operate as an oligarchy, because of the semi-permanent beurocratic class we have developed that is suffering from a co-dependant relationship with the money provided by the rich, we could as a nation at any point wake up and start operating as a living, participatory democracy. We wouldn't need a revolution, or a "regime change" or anything radical like that. Simply for the people to start exercising the rights already provided to them by the systems in place.

Geoschmo

[ April 19, 2003, 04:54: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

raynor

April 19th, 2003, 07:24 AM

Sure. I agree that we as a nation could wake up and start participating in government. It would just take a bottle of smelling salts the size of, oh, say, Jupiter. But, sure, it could happen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Some1

April 19th, 2003, 12:30 PM

hmmmm,
Got any examples of a stable dictatorship?? Example of Stable dictatorship?? Cuba, Castro? You have a lot of years the "same" policies, leader etc...

Ok, there ARE 'stable' democracies, BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.Every x years a regime change = technically not stable. Often other leaders, other policies etc..

Edit: Gees looks like this thread has claimed another 5 star rating. Who knew calling a democracy stable would piss people off.I never rated people... But what do you complain you have twice as many stars as i have anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Yes it is. Democracies are inherently stable forms of government because they are designed to promote (and force) "regime" changes at regular intervals. So, there are no sudden upheavals, no coups, no seizures of power. Those only happen in countries where the democracy was just formed after long periods of tyrannical governments, where the old powers were not sufficiently neutered, so they still have the strength to reclaim power. Otherwise, the democracy endures. Saying that this sort of thing is an example of the instability of democracy is wrong, becuase there never really was much of a democracy to begin with in those countries.Every 4 years a Upheaval (but following the rules) New politicy, new judges, new president...

But what i tried was including the Iraq model. Countries like that ARE instable AND ('Those only happen in countries where the democracy was just formed after long periods of tyrannical governments').... So, my question again, is a democracy the option GWB wants? And option for Iraq?

The US has so many various ethnic Groups in it from all over the world that it makes that example sort of meaningless. The government of the US changes as "drastically" as in your example all the time. Noone flees the country because of it. There was no mass emmigration of Democrats from the country when Bush won in 2000. There was no mass emmigration of Republicans from the US when Clinton won in 1992 or 1996. The UK has a number of vastly distinct ethnic Groups in it. It doesn't have any such problems either. Neither does nearly any other democratic country in the world.USA is a 'democracy' for some time now... And in its beginning years it was far from democratic (for a lot of ethnic Groups)... This sort of thing takes a Lot of time, and during that it is not very (i shall use the dreaded word again) 'stable'... So, my question again (2), is a democracy the option GWB wants?

Seems there are differing views about stability. Even a country where the head of state is assassinated and replaced by his murderer every year, maybe even accompanied by a short civil war of 3-4 months, can technically considered to be "stable" if this happens on a regular, stable basis lol http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Given the number of folks in this thread arguing that we primarily went to war just to line the pocket books of GWB's cronies, I'm surprised those same folks aren't arguing that we really don't have a democracy at all. Rather, we have an oligarchy.Im one of them... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

pfew, i have pain in my eyes from my monitor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
See your replies later http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

R.

Master Belisarius

April 19th, 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
[QUOTE]Of course getting a democracy well established and stable is going to be pretty tough in Iraq.Oh yes, but also MUST be a Democracy friendly to Occident, specially friendly to USA.
During a good time (can't guess how many time), they will have a "tutorial" government, that also will rebuild his country.
After this, only time will say, but I'm not optimistic that Iraq will be an independent country with a true Democracy... at least in my lifetime.

geoschmo

April 19th, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
After this, only time will say, but I'm not optimistic that Iraq will be an independent country with a true Democracy... at least in my lifetime.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

Cyrien

April 19th, 2003, 09:38 PM

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

DavidG

April 20th, 2003, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Cyrien:
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?
Yup very! It's also interesting how some countries can openly despise and hate the USA but have no problem using their currency.

DavidG

April 20th, 2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Some1:
hmmmm,
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Got any examples of a stable dictatorship?? Example of Stable dictatorship?? Cuba, Castro? You have a lot of years the "same" policies, leader etc...

Ok, there ARE 'stable' democracies, BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.Every x years a regime change = technically not stable. Often other leaders, other policies etc..
<hr /></blockquote>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 ]

Master Belisarius

April 20th, 2003, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cyrien:
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?
Yup very! It's also interesting how some countries can openly despise and hate the USA but have no problem using their currency.<hr /></blockquote>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/storybuilder.cfm?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 ]

Thermodyne

April 20th, 2003, 05:01 AM

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.

DavidG

April 20th, 2003, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
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.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.

Fyron

April 21st, 2003, 05:19 AM

I guess the U.S. has an excellent credit rating in the eyes of the worlds people. Well the US government has never once defaulted on a loan or failed to make payment.

TerranC

April 21st, 2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
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.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 ]

Andr�s

April 21st, 2003, 06:03 AM

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.

Oh yes, but also MUST be a Democracy friendly to Occident, specially friendly to USA.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.

TerranC

April 21st, 2003, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Andres:
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?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.

Fyron

April 21st, 2003, 07:07 AM

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. 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?

Roanon

April 22nd, 2003, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why would you expect less of the US now?Lol. Because the president now is Bush and his prime interest is money. Thats pretty obvious.

Greybeard

April 22nd, 2003, 05:34 AM

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

kalthalior

April 22nd, 2003, 05:05 PM

Story on meeting of some Iraqi leaders from MSNBC.

Iraqi leadership convention (http://www.msnbc.com/news/901141.asp?0cb=-617149853)

tesco samoa

April 22nd, 2003, 06:22 PM

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

Loser

April 22nd, 2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
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.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.

Fyron

April 22nd, 2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Roanon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why would you expect less of the US now?Lol. Because the president now is Bush and his prime interest is money. Thats pretty obvious.<hr /></blockquote>Hmm... same with _every_ other president we have ever had... so why would you expect any difference now?

Loser

April 22nd, 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Roanon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why would you expect less of the US now?Lol. Because the president now is Bush and his prime interest is money. Thats pretty obvious.<hr /></blockquote>Hmm... same with _every_ other president we have ever had... so why would you expect any difference now?<hr /></blockquote>That's not entirely true. There was Millard Fillmore.

General Woundwort

April 22nd, 2003, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
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 prize1) 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

Wardad

April 22nd, 2003, 09:11 PM

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 ]

Aloofi

April 22nd, 2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Loser:

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.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.

Aloofi

April 22nd, 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Just out of interest I did a google search for PNAC+"mein kampf".

Got some interesting results, although everything on the first page seems to be quoted from the same source.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=PNAC+%22mein+kampf%22 ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=PNAC+%22mein+kampf%22)

---
Edit: fixed linkThat was cool.
I always new something was very, very wrong with the current administration.

Alpha Kodiak

April 23rd, 2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Roanon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why would you expect less of the US now?Lol. Because the president now is Bush and his prime interest is money. Thats pretty obvious.<hr /></blockquote>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.

Loser

April 23rd, 2003, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Loser, I admire you, you are my hero of the week! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
...
I will always remember the US as it was under Clinton. For me that was the Golden Age.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.

Phoenix-D

April 23rd, 2003, 04:26 AM

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

TerranC

April 23rd, 2003, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
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 prizeChile
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 ]

dogscoff

April 23rd, 2003, 11:56 AM

I do not know President Bush personally, so I can only guess at his motivations.
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.

primitive

April 23rd, 2003, 12:34 PM

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.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.

tesco samoa

April 23rd, 2003, 02:58 PM

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.

Loser

April 23rd, 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
And Yes I am a fan of Marshell,,, I thought my post gave that impression.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.

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
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.
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.

geoschmo

April 23rd, 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
And Yes I am a fan of Marshell,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

jimbob

April 23rd, 2003, 05:26 PM

Dogscoff said:
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.(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 ]

Wardad

April 23rd, 2003, 06:42 PM

Saddams Missles Hidden in Plain Sight!

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

Fyron

April 23rd, 2003, 08:03 PM

DS:
And all of this arranged and planned even before he even came to power.
That would be baseless propaganda.

Primitive:
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.
Except that Bush hasn't committed any war crimes...

Tesco:
If their dishonest they should be removed. Guess we have to remove all politicians from every office on the planet. Part of being a politician is being able to lie well.

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

tesco samoa

April 23rd, 2003, 08:18 PM

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir030423_1_n.shtml

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

Alpha Kodiak

April 23rd, 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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.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.<hr /></blockquote>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.

Alpha Kodiak

April 23rd, 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
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.
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.

rextorres

April 23rd, 2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QB]DS:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> And all of this arranged and planned even before he even came to power.
That would be baseless propaganda.

[QB]<hr /></blockquote>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.

Loser

April 23rd, 2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
Actually Wolfowitz ... attacking Iraq ... to project U.S. power into the region. 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.

primitive

April 24th, 2003, 01:06 AM

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.

Fyron

April 24th, 2003, 01:17 AM

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.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 ]

primitive

April 24th, 2003, 01:56 AM

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.

Fyron

April 24th, 2003, 02:11 AM

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".

Cyrien

April 24th, 2003, 02:29 AM

"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.

primitive

April 24th, 2003, 03:17 AM

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.

tesco samoa

April 24th, 2003, 03:30 AM

Rex perhaps the US used Weapons of Mass Distraction.

tesco samoa

April 24th, 2003, 03:00 PM

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.

geoschmo

April 24th, 2003, 03:04 PM

Damn Micronesians....

tesco samoa

April 24th, 2003, 03:11 PM

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

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebuilding_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.

Phoenix-D

April 24th, 2003, 05:10 PM

"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

jimbob

April 24th, 2003, 06:02 PM

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.

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

Cyrien

April 24th, 2003, 08:14 PM

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 ]

tesco samoa

April 24th, 2003, 08:27 PM

http://cogenteur.blogspot.com/2003_04_01_cogenteur_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.

Alpha Kodiak

April 24th, 2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by rextorres:
[QBThe real "propaganda" was how they duped U.S. public opinion to get behind the war.[/QB]You realize, of course that this is a direct insult against the intelligence of the vast majority of Americans that support the war. Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that those who disagree with you might just possibly be right and you just might possibly be wrong.

geoschmo

April 24th, 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
You realize, of course that this is a direct insult against the intelligence of the vast majority of Americans that support the war. Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that those who disagree with you might just possibly be right and you just might possibly be wrong.Don't even bother AK. It's very important for you to rememebr that being opposed to the war does NOT mean you were supporting Saddam. But if you supported the war it's ok for you to be labeled as bloodthirsty, uneducated, naive, deceived, disingenuous, or any other of a litany of negative characterizations. You can't take issue with them, you must simply accept them. Once you understand that it will go much easier for you.

Geoschmo

Some1

April 24th, 2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rextorres:
[QBThe real "propaganda" was how they duped U.S. public opinion to get behind the war.You realize, of course that this is a direct insult against the intelligence of the vast majority of Americans that support the war. Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that those who disagree with you might just possibly be right and you just might possibly be wrong.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>It has nothing to do with intelligence, Even the smartest people are influencable...

Jack Simth

April 24th, 2003, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Don't even bother AK. It's very important for you to rememebr that being opposed to the war does NOT mean you were supporting Saddam. But if you supported the war it's ok for you to be labeled as bloodthirsty, uneducated, naive, deceived, disingenuous, or any other of a litany of negative characterizations. You can't take issue with them, you must simply accept them. Once you understand that it will go much easier for you.

GeoschmoYou realize, that by that logic, it means that if you oppose the war, you open yourself up to being called naive, impractical, uneducated, decieved, a passive supporter of tyrrany, or any other number of negative characterizations? Further, using the same logic, you have closed your own doors of taking issue with them; you have volunteered to remain silent.

Of course, that all assumes that you don't hold to a double standard....

Alpha Kodiak

April 24th, 2003, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
You realize, of course that this is a direct insult against the intelligence of the vast majority of Americans that support the war. Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that those who disagree with you might just possibly be right and you just might possibly be wrong.Don't even bother AK. It's very important for you to rememebr that being opposed to the war does NOT mean you were supporting Saddam. But if you supported the war it's ok for you to be labeled as bloodthirsty, uneducated, naive, deceived, disingenuous, or any other of a litany of negative characterizations. You can't take issue with them, you must simply accept them. Once you understand that it will go much easier for you.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>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.

tesco samoa

April 24th, 2003, 09:29 PM

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/0304/23/nation-145152.htm

tesco samoa

April 24th, 2003, 09:47 PM

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

Fyron

April 24th, 2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by geoschmo:
Don't even bother AK. It's very important for you to rememebr that being opposed to the war does NOT mean you were supporting Saddam. But if you supported the war it's ok for you to be labeled as bloodthirsty, uneducated, naive, deceived, disingenuous, or any other of a litany of negative characterizations. You can't take issue with them, you must simply accept them. Once you understand that it will go much easier for you.

GeoschmoYou realize, that by that logic, it means that if you oppose the war, you open yourself up to being called naive, impractical, uneducated, decieved, a passive supporter of tyrrany, or any other number of negative characterizations? Further, using the same logic, you have closed your own doors of taking issue with them; you have volunteered to remain silent.

Of course, that all assumes that you don't hold to a double standard....<hr /></blockquote>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 ]

geoschmo

April 24th, 2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
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.

TescoTesco, I count you among those that I have been able to respectfully disagree with. You have no need to appologize.

Geoschmo

Alpha Kodiak

April 24th, 2003, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
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/0304/23/nation-145152.htmI appreciate your sentiments, and will consider them. One problem is that I am currently a person of limited time (I know, most are) and I have to decide where to spend my time. I can only devote a small amount of time to things SE and, for the most part, would rather spend my time on game oriented things than debating politics in an environment where I am unlikely to change any opinions.

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....

geoschmo

April 24th, 2003, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
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....That may or may not be true about forums in general, but it certainly the case for this thread in particular. I can't count the number of times I have sworn off ever returning to this particular thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

rextorres

April 24th, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QUOTE]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.Since we are getting personal . . . it seems you label everything you don't agree with as "propaganda". Also I don't understand how you consistantly deny your a Republican even though every position I've read from you is consistant with a Republican position; are you being Devil's Advocate?

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 ]

tesco samoa

April 25th, 2003, 05:41 AM

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.

primitive

April 25th, 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Don't even bother AK. It's very important for you to rememebr that being opposed to the war does NOT mean you were supporting Saddam. But if you supported the war it's ok for you to be labeled as bloodthirsty, uneducated, naive, deceived, disingenuous, or any other of a litany of negative characterizations. You can't take issue with them, you must simply accept them. Once you understand that it will go much easier for you.

GeoschmoThanks Geo. It’s good to be remained of own shortcomings once in a while http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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)).

Loser

April 25th, 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by primitive:
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)).That's damn noble of you, and the correct prespective from which to view the matter, I think: patience. Wait and see, it will all be made clear with time. Then we will know. Then we will be better prepared for it the next time it comes up. Originally posted by rextorres:
I don't understand how you consistently deny your a Republican even though every position I've read from you is consistent with a Republican position; are you being Devil's Advocate?There are conservatives in this country that are not Republicans, friend. Making such assumptions risks having yourself rightly labeled as 'naive'. If you were not aware of political parties beyond the Big Two, or if you do not believe that Independent means _independent_, then I will simply assume that you have no education beyond public school, and will try not to hold that against you in the future. Originally posted by rextorres:
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.It is the sensationalist press (nothing wrong with that, it makes money), that keeps jumping on the latest rumor of WMD. It is the kids with which these press members spend their time (really, look at the ages of these boys and girls), who are feeding them these leads.

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?

Originally posted by rextorres:
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?Please continue to be cynical. Eventually, with age, you will turn your cynicism on your own beliefs, and that's where you might find wisdom. Just don't expect you're there before you're fifty.

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. Originally posted by rextorres:
Some people consistently deny the war is about oil - forgetting 1000 of years of history where resources are what wars have always been about.There are resources other than oil. I can't believe how many people say "oil, oil, oil" and forget that Iraq is the most strategically located country in the world! If you wish to throw around baseless accusations (and anyone can see you have not provided a base for this one, simply expecting it to stand on it's own merit), at least pick the good ones! Originally posted by rextorres:
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!!!?North Korea HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!! What the hell do you think U.S. _can_ do about that?!? What the hell would _you_ do about that smart guy?!?!

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.) Originally posted by rextorres:
I am sorry that I refuse to believe the propaganda that you seem to like to get spoon fed to you by Shrub.One thing you should learn, young'un, is that saying someone is wrong is okay: that is a disagreement. Saying someone is wrong and not building a good arguement for why their wrong is still okay: that is disagreement without debate. Saying someone is wrong and that they did not decide to be wrong is an insult. It 'disenfranchises' them. It draws away from their identity. It says that they are not even a valid human, especially among a crowd like this, where we place such intense value on free will, individuality, and personal expression.

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.

tesco samoa

April 25th, 2003, 04:01 PM

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.

primitive

April 25th, 2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Loser:

I will only try this once.Thank you.

rextorres

April 25th, 2003, 07:52 PM

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 ]

Cyrien

April 25th, 2003, 08:08 PM

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?

rextorres

April 25th, 2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Cyrien:
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?I was being Ironic.

Cyrien

April 25th, 2003, 08:19 PM

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.

Fyron

April 25th, 2003, 08:24 PM

it seems you label everything you don't agree with as "propaganda".I already explained that nearly everything posted in this thread is base propaganda, even the things that I agree with. Propaganda is not necessarily things that you do not agree with.

Also I don't understand how you consistantly deny your a Republican even though every position I've read from you is consistant with a Republican position; are you being Devil's Advocate?There is a huge difference between being a Republican and agreeing with a few "Republican" positions (in quotes because almost no positions are wholely Republican, Democratic, or whatever). Also, supporting the war most certainly does not make one a Republican any more than opposing it makes one a Democrat. Nothing is that black and white.

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.

If it looks like fish and smells like a fish then it is a fish. A Libertarian for instance is just a Republican without Religion.Actually, you could not be any more wrong than that. Try looking at other countries than the US where they have more than 2 major political parties. Their parties overlap on some areas, but differ greatly in others. They do not just have 2 positions, and all parties are one or the other. Now, lets look back at Libertarians. Once you remove yourself from the hype you have duped* yourself into believing, you will be able to see that they are most certainly not Republicans, any more than Green party members are Democrats. The real world is not as black and white as you see it. You see everything as being polarized into 2 camps (as supported by the content of nearly every one of your Posts), when this is certainly not true. Very few people are fully a Republican or a Democrat. Most people support "Repulican" positions on some issues, and "Democratic" issues on others. Party affiliation is basically just a result of your parents and those other people that you idolized (or demonized) as you were growing up.

*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.

Sorry. I just don't see the Irony in that statement. Neither do I...

[ April 25, 2003, 19:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

rextorres

April 25th, 2003, 08:37 PM

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).

Loser

April 25th, 2003, 08:44 PM

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.

Cyrien

April 25th, 2003, 08:56 PM

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.

rextorres

April 25th, 2003, 09:15 PM

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 ]

Cyrien

April 25th, 2003, 09:31 PM

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.

rextorres

April 25th, 2003, 09:36 PM

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 ]

Loser

April 25th, 2003, 09:50 PM

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.

Loser

April 25th, 2003, 09:55 PM

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.

Cyrien

April 25th, 2003, 09:58 PM

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.

rextorres

April 25th, 2003, 10:01 PM

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.

rextorres

April 25th, 2003, 10:12 PM

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 ]

Cyrien

April 25th, 2003, 10:23 PM

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 ]

rextorres

April 25th, 2003, 10:35 PM

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.

Cyrien

April 25th, 2003, 10:40 PM

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?

Cyrien

April 25th, 2003, 10:44 PM

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 ]

rextorres

April 25th, 2003, 10:50 PM

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.

Cyrien

April 25th, 2003, 10:59 PM

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 ]

Narrew

April 25th, 2003, 11:03 PM

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...

Alpha Kodiak

April 25th, 2003, 11:22 PM

Time for my daily fix. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Originally posted by rextorres:
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.
That is certainly an interesting generalization. Those who know my Posts from other threads know that I strongly believe in Christianity and yes, I am a registered Republican.

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.

Aloofi

April 25th, 2003, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Cyrien:
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.World opinion my ***. Who cares about world opinion?
He didn't use them because he already gave them to Al Qaeda... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/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.

rextorres

April 25th, 2003, 11:56 PM

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 ]

Cyrien

April 26th, 2003, 12:18 AM

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 ]

DavidG

April 26th, 2003, 01:02 AM

Shrub = Bush. We get it. haha. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Personaly I find it hard to take someone seriously when they have to resort to petty name calling every other post.

rextorres

April 26th, 2003, 01:16 AM

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.

Fyron

April 26th, 2003, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
Shrub = Bush. We get it. haha. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Personaly I find it hard to take someone seriously when they have to resort to petty name calling every other post.I'll second that motion...

tesco samoa

April 28th, 2003, 03:34 AM

Interesting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1051359175040&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2979405.stm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/27/MN99456.DTL

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_documents030416.html

Alpha Kodiak

April 28th, 2003, 08:10 AM

It will be interesting to see how these things play out in the long run, but the most interesting thing to me actually doesn't involve the documents themselves. Rather, I find it interesting that each news source claims they were the ones who found the documents, and in the cases of the Star and the BBC they even named different correspondents who found the documents. The only agency that varied was ABC, who took the interesting approach of using the opportunity to lead with how badly the US is handling security of all the potential sites for finding documents, rather than the significance of the documents themselves (though they did get into that later in their report). I'm not sure what the significance of all that is, but it is interesting, anyway.

EDIT: Removed quote in case it would cause formatting problems for this page.

[ April 29, 2003, 18:30: Message edited by: Alpha Kodiak ]

DavidG

April 28th, 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
Rather, I find it interesting that each news source claims they were the ones who found the documents, and in the cases of the Star and the BBC they even named different correspondents who found the documents. This is probably because there were 2 reporters working together. A Toronto Star and a London Telegraph reporter. Each news source highlighted their own reporter.

What is strange is why the big news outlets aren't making a big deal out of this. Isn't this the evidence everyone has been waiting for??

Aloofi

April 28th, 2003, 06:39 PM

Please.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Intelligence documents, especially the one that would give the higher moral ground to the enemy, are kept in self burning containers. They are not left lying around, and enemy intelligence buildings are the very first thing that a victorious army secure.

In my humble little opinion, those documents were left there for the reporters to find. Sorry, but I have learn in my short life that in war everything goes. Those documents fill the profile of "made" evidence.

Said that, I have no doubt that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were working together against their common enemy, but I don't think that relationship could ever be proven, so some nice guy at Langley made it easier for the US in the Propaganda War by delivering the missing evidence into the hands of couple of very nice reporters, who, of course, are not gonna doubt the papers that will probably give them their 15 minutes of fame. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Aloofi

April 28th, 2003, 06:43 PM

Check this qoute from the Star.com :

"Spies from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who scoured the building after it was bombed into rubble, apparently missed the document. "

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Aloofi

April 28th, 2003, 07:44 PM

Tesco, can you edit your post with the links so this page returns to its original format?

DavidG

April 28th, 2003, 08:34 PM

The print copy of The Star actually went into quite a bit of detail on why they don't think this evidence was made up. The Online copy is considerably abreviated.

Aloofi

April 28th, 2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
The print copy of The Star actually went into quite a bit of detail on why they don't think this evidence was made up. The Online copy is considerably abreviated.Because it was whithin other Iraki papers?
Because it was written with the same machine or same hand writting than other papers?
Because it was written in an old paper?
Because of signatures?
Because of the date?
Because where it was found?
Because of the ink?

My friend, we live in a world where everything is falsificable.

My believe that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein worked together doesn't need any evidence. I just needed to do a little math. But these papers "found" in an Iraki intelligence building have "Made in USA" written all over it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Cyrien

April 28th, 2003, 09:52 PM

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/story.asp?id=51AA6AB6-034B-4FE0-911C-04871E6B1EC5

Interesting...

Aloofi

April 28th, 2003, 10:01 PM

Is it true?

Cyrien

April 28th, 2003, 10:46 PM

Can't say if it is true or not. A friend in Europe found it and sent it to me. Did a few searches and all I could find were that article and some comments about it elsewhere. Couldn't verify it independently myself.

DavidG

April 28th, 2003, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DavidG:
The print copy of The Star actually went into quite a bit of detail on why they don't think this evidence was made up. The Online copy is considerably abreviated.Because it was whithin other Iraki papers?
Because it was written with the same machine or same hand writting than other papers?
Because it was written in an old paper?
Because of signatures?
Because of the date?
Because where it was found?
Because of the ink?

My friend, we live in a world where everything is falsificable.
<hr /></blockquote>Yea no kidding. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I can only assume by these questions that you did not have access to the full article. Not that it matters since I guess you wouldn't believe it anyway. Do you really think the CIA is running around Iraq hidding forged papers in really obscure locations on the off chance someone will find them or that the Iraqi are so gifted they coverd up all their contact with bin Laden?

tesco samoa

April 29th, 2003, 02:42 PM

another intersting link

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,447429,00.html

about Rumsfield and ABB and North Korea and reactors

tesco samoa

April 29th, 2003, 05:28 PM

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Matters of Emphasis
By PAUL KRUGMAN

We were not lying," a Bush administration official told ABC News. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." The official was referring to the way the administration hyped the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. According to the ABC report, the real reason for the war was that the administration "wanted to make a statement." And why Iraq? "Officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target."

A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that "intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war." One "high-level source" told the paper that "they ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat."

Sure enough, we have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. It's hard to believe that we won't eventually find some poison gas or crude biological weapons. But those aren't true W.M.D.'s, the sort of weapons that can make a small, poor country a threat to the greatest power the world has ever known. Remember that President Bush made his case for war by warning of a "mushroom cloud." Clearly, Iraq didn't have anything like that - and Mr. Bush must have known that it didn't.

Does it matter that we were misled into war? Some people say that it doesn't: we won, and the Iraqi people have been freed. But we ought to ask some hard questions - not just about Iraq, but about ourselves.

First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization - the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS - called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year - a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal.

Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And that must be true - we wouldn't let innocent people die just to spite the French, would we?

So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn't extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any occasion to stage a victory parade.

Meanwhile, aren't the leaders of a democratic nation supposed to tell their citizens the truth?

One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that the original case for war has turned out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most Americans believe that we have found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring coverage on TV; how many people catch the later announcement - if it is ever announced - that it was a false alarm? It's a pattern of misinformation that recapitulates the way the war was sold in the first place. Each administration charge against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent debunking did not.

Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the administration's credibility? Some strange things certainly happened. For example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear weapons. "I don't know what more evidence we need," he said. In fact, the report said no such thing - and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC's Web site bore the headline "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq." Then the story vanished - not just from the top of the page, but from the site.

Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions, the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat - just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11.

Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy - aren't we?

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/29KRUG.html

Aloofi

April 29th, 2003, 05:34 PM

Tesco, could you edit your post from a couple days ago with all those links so the format of this thread get back to normal?

Because now we have to side scroll due to those long links......

Alpha Kodiak

April 29th, 2003, 07:32 PM

Strange, it appears that it was my quote of Tesco's links that was causing the problem. Oh, how I love computers....

tesco samoa

April 29th, 2003, 08:03 PM

really i do not get that at all ??? perhaps it is your screen size

Aloofi

April 29th, 2003, 08:49 PM

Hey, now is perfect!
Thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

tesco samoa

April 29th, 2003, 09:15 PM

http://www.totalobscurity.com/mind/flagstore/

This is a great great site..... Just to show some humour in the thread...

Fyron

April 30th, 2003, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Hey, now is perfect!
Thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That is because the post slid to the second page. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Gwaihir

April 30th, 2003, 01:28 AM

I like the "store," tesco, and the links off of it are great too!

Fyron

April 30th, 2003, 01:53 AM

That's a rather offensive site. It implies that the only patriotic Americans are slack-jawed yokels... nothing humorous at all...

tesco samoa

April 30th, 2003, 02:35 AM

I would disagree Fyron. The web admin even places a disclaimer on what his intention is with that web site. I know it is heavy on the Satire.

Fyron

April 30th, 2003, 02:37 AM

Oh, a disclaimer. That sure makes everything better. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Gwaihir

April 30th, 2003, 03:05 AM

I personally disagree with the implication of the site, but i felt that it was so over-the-top that it was clearly satirical. I think that there have definitely been several instances of over-enthusiastic patriotism ("freedom fries," anyone?) of late.

Here's a site making fun of the other side of things:
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
(check out the MSS through history section . . . two in particular are quite good.)

Alpha Kodiak

April 30th, 2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Gwaihir:
I personally disagree with the implication of the site, but i felt that it was so over-the-top that it was clearly satirical. I think that there have definitely been several instances of over-enthusiastic patriotism ("freedom fries," anyone?) of late.

Here's a site making fun of the other side of things:
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
(check out the MSS through history section . . . two in particular are quite good.)Warning: I am transmitting this link to the Namovan Information Minister http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Fyron

April 30th, 2003, 09:40 AM

I personally disagree with the implication of the site, but i felt that it was so over-the-top that it was clearly satirical. Well of course it is an attempt at satire. But, it is still not humorous in the slightest.

Aloofi

April 30th, 2003, 03:00 PM

I wasn't going to check Tesco's link to total obscurity, but when Fyron started complaining, I thought that link must be good..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

http://www.totalobscurity.com/mind/flagstore/flagoffend.jpg

Cyrien

April 30th, 2003, 04:11 PM

I found it quite funny. I don't see it as necessarily making fun of those who display patriotism so much as the industry trying to sell anything and everything in a way to make a buck off of it.

Just goes to show that funny, like so many other things, is in the eye of the beholder. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

kalthalior

April 30th, 2003, 06:25 PM

Interesting article on US foreign policy & decision making

Neo-cons: who are they & how much influence do they really have? (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1731327)

Fyron

April 30th, 2003, 08:57 PM

It is not funny because it operates under the assumption that only "hicks" have any patriotism for America. The only way you would find it funny is if you essentially agree with that claim (like all satire).

Jack Simth

April 30th, 2003, 09:03 PM

What's to indicate that the driver is a "hick"/"slack-jawed yokel" (as you implied)? The truck is brand new (or in perfect shape, anyway), it doesn't have a speck of mud on it, it is driving through the middle of a rather high-class area of a warm region (Presumably in America - California?) and it is in an orginized parade. All indications are that the driver is a reasonably successful person in the sense of sufficient funds to do what (s)he wants and sufficent time to do so.

Please, enlighten us as to what exactly made you think the driver is a "hick"/"slack-jawed yokel" Fyron.

[ April 30, 2003, 20:08: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Cyrien

April 30th, 2003, 11:05 PM

Only hicks support patriotism. And only people that support that view find it funny. Let me analyze this with a simple example. Me and my family.

I am patriotic. I love the United States. I have lived in many other countries in Europe for various periods of time. I like the United States better flaws and all.

My Grandfather on my dads side faught in World War 2. My Grandfather on my moms side faught in the Korean War. My father faught in Vietnam. My older brother was in Somalia, GF1, and Serbia as a US Ranger. One of my best friends is in the Air Force, another is in the Marines. My family and friends as well as myself find that site funny. I would not consider us slack jawed yokels, nor would I say that any of us consider people who display patriotism to be such.

Through hard physical evidence I would have to say that your statement is simply false.

Fyron

May 1st, 2003, 12:31 AM

Jack:
Did you read the caption? All proof necessary is in there (and in most of the captions).

Cyrien:
Your comments directly support my statements about that site, actually. I said that the site implies that only "hicks" are patriotic, and you claim to not be a hick and to be patriotic. So how does that make my main statement false?

[ April 30, 2003, 23:35: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Jack Simth

May 1st, 2003, 01:02 AM

Sure - the person running the site is an idiot, granted. However, there is humor in there (especially if you let the photo stand alone) which your Posts would deny.

Fyron

May 1st, 2003, 01:19 AM

There is perverse humor, yes. But no good humor.

Cyrien

May 1st, 2003, 01:33 AM

Now this I find funny. Get a post of some humor in what was no doubt thought of as a safe post. And now the topic seems to have totally moved to a side tangent about the humor. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

geoschmo

May 1st, 2003, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
There is perverse humor, yes. But no good humor.MMmmmmmm, Good Humor ice cream bars. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Yummmy! (http://www.goodhumor.com/goodhumor/default.asp?brand=goodhumor)

[ May 01, 2003, 00:49: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Aloofi

May 1st, 2003, 09:32 PM

I would classify that site as Political Humor, and political humor always make one side laugh and another side rage.
Do I find it funny?
You bet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

May 1st, 2003, 09:57 PM

Aloofi:
So are you "on the side" that thinks only hicks are patriotic? I am "on the side" that thinks that site's basis of humor (that only hicks are patriotic) is absurd. The only thing laughable is the idiocy of the site's author.

Aloofi

May 1st, 2003, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Aloofi:
So are you "on the side" that thinks only hicks are patriotic? I am "on the side" that thinks that site's basis of humor (that only hicks are patriotic) is absurd. The only thing laughable is the idiocy of the site's author.When did I say that there were only 2 sides?

But I must confess that is irresistable to support anything that piss you off...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron, don't you realize that your totalitarian way of posting your opinions make people to pick on you uncounciousnally?

My position?
I like USA, but I don't like Bush, not even a little bit.
And Patriotism is a very, very dangerous feeling.
Especially for a superpower.

Me, I'm nationalistic, and my feelings for Israel are very patriotic, but Israel is a tiny little country surrounded by enemies that have sworn many times in public to push Israel into the Mediterranean Sea. For us patriotism is survival.
For the USA, on the other hand, patriotism is not a necesity, nor a do or die issue, and more importantly, patriotism in the US have come hand to hand with discrimination of minorities and foreign nationals, and with a shaking of the constitutional rights.

.

Fyron

May 1st, 2003, 10:16 PM

Patriotism means you love your country. It has nothing to do with supporting the current leaders or not.

rextorres

May 1st, 2003, 10:16 PM

Actually I'd say those types of "patriots" are more like NAZIs than hicks. Have you ever seen Triumph of the Will?

You can just replace "USA, USA, USA" with Zieg Hiel.

Aloofi

May 1st, 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Patriotism means you love your country. It has nothing to do with supporting the current leaders or not.Agreed, but patriotism in the US happens to be a "white only" thing, and probably a "christian only" thing.
But do you know what the scariest part?
What a politician can do with those feelings.

Fyron

May 1st, 2003, 10:31 PM

Umm... there are plenty of non-white, non-christian patriots in the USA... maybe not in the deep South, but most of the country is not as racist as you seem to believe that it is.

Aloofi

May 1st, 2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... there are plenty of non-white, non-christian patriots in the USA... maybe not in the deep South, but most of the country is not as racist as you seem to believe that it is.Well, I'm not saying the whole US is racist, but all the outspoken patriots I know or I have seen are conservatives extremists anti immigrants bordering in racism and anti-semitism.
Of course, the ones that know me don't tell me that to my face, but as a white jew I pass very easily as white non jewish, so I happen to hear more than I'm expected to.

Fyron

May 2nd, 2003, 12:49 AM

Judge a populace based off of a few individiuals... who is being prejudiced now?

There are a lot of racist liberals, and there are a lot of exteremely tolerant conservatives. The world is not as black and white as you are painting it.

[ May 01, 2003, 23:50: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Cyrien

May 2nd, 2003, 01:15 AM

I should add to my post that I am not white. Half-white on the side of not looking white at all. My mother was from Puerto Rico. In addition I would say that I live in West Texas.

Also I would have to add that many of the most patriotic people I have known have not been white at all. In addition I am neither racist nor a conservative. I tend to not like labels such as conservative or liberal etc... You can be conservative in one area and be extremely liberal in another. Oh. And I'm not overly religious. My fathers side is Protestant and my mothers Catholic and I'm Agnostic. So there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

A refutation of someone elses argument.

[ May 02, 2003, 00:16: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Fyron

May 2nd, 2003, 01:24 AM

I tend to not like labels such as conservative or liberal etc... You can be conservative in one area and be extremely liberal in another. I fully agree with you there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You can of course be extremely conservative and extremely liberal at the same time too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Narrew

May 2nd, 2003, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Well, I'm not saying the whole US is racist, but all the outspoken patriots I know or I have seen are conservatives extremists Funny, I hear the so-called Liberals (here in the USA) say the same thing. Most of them are nay sayers and Bush haters ie good ole politics. I can bet you that if Clinton or some other Democrat did what GW did, they would sing a different tune. I never thought Patriotism had a specific gender/race requirement, nor political one.

anti immigrants bordering in racism and anti-Semitism.

Umm, I am white and consider myself a conservative. I can tell you that I do not harbor racist/Semitic thoughts. To use a label again, as I look at what the so called liberals say, I consider them more of a threat to racism than what they accuse us conservative extremists of.

Of course, the ones that know me don't tell me that to my face, but as a white jew I pass very easily as white non jewish, so I happen to hear more than I'm expected to.

What is it that you are or are not expected to hear? Is it what you want to hear? The reason I ask, is when I read what you wrote I asked myself, when was the Last time I heard a racist/anti Semitic comment, and frankly I don't remember one, that is just between my friends and the folks I go to school with. I am not saying that it don't happen, and I am not talking about the talking heads on TV (it is to easy to find any view point you want on satellite) I am just saying what "I" see in normal America. What I am saying is, I do not think to myself before I open my mouth, "Hey self, you think that white guy is a jew?". Actually I just open my mouth and insert both feet, but I say what I feel *shrug*.

Also, I have no understanding of the plight in Israel. Watching the bombing that happened the other night is very foreign to me. As long as there are religious fanatics willing to blow themselves up for their god, I have no idea what can be done to help fix the situation. I truly hope that the Iraq situation is a step in the right direction. To get the countries in the Middle East to question their involvement with Hamas (and other terrorist orgs). It is a HUGE process and I hope that the USA helps Israel the best that we can.

[ May 02, 2003, 02:59: Message edited by: Narrew ]

Aloofi

May 2nd, 2003, 04:56 PM

Article:

"Mike�s Place, Tel Aviv Bombed"

April 30, 2003

At 1 a.m. April 30th in Tel Aviv a homicide bomber blew himself up at Mike�s Place, murdering 3 and maiming at least 49, 8 seriously. Mike�s Place is next door to the American Embassy - I wonder if President Bush got the message? This is the 89th suicide bombing since the Arab Palestinian Terrorists began the September 29, 2000 Rosh HaShanah War.

The heroism of a security guard at the entrance, like the one at the Kfar Saba train station on Thursday April 24th, saw the Terrorist, engaged him in a strong verbal exchange, asked for his ID but effectively pre-empted from entering the pub who then blew himself up at the entrance and not inside the pub. Mike�s Place was filled to the brim and an explosion would have caused dozens of killed and injured.

No doubt, on cue, we will hear from Bush-Powell-Peres burbling as always: "These killings will not stop the "Peace Process�". The BBC, always an anti-Jewish pro-Terrorist new organizations, has reported that the Homicide was merely an expression of Palestinian pain and frustration.

In the days to come we will hear President Bush condemn the bombing and then say that this is the reason that his political jingle called "The Road Map" must be followed.

The U.S. State Department will roll out its propaganda machine to fudge over the killing and boost Abu Mazen just hours after he was voted in as the new Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. As a PM with little power, he will be celebrated for his potential while Arafat continues to hold the reins of power.

Even as I write this, the White House, as I predicted, has "condemned the Homicide Bombing and further states that it will not impede the "Road Map".

We have yet to hear from Israel�s Prime Minister Sharon and see if he obediently follows the usual Peres expression: "This shall not stop the Piss Process."

We await the Left Liberal Media take on the clear statement by Hamas or Islamic Jihad that they will continue the bombing until Israel is gone. We await the NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, NPR (NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO), among others, to start vomiting out rationale as damage control to protect the Arab Palestinians and their Terrorist cronies.

Not to worry - just wait for the Wave of Propaganda to wash over you explaining how Terrorists are merely frustrated militants and how we are not �really� at war with Islam and hostile Muslims. "

Fyron

May 3rd, 2003, 01:36 AM

The BBC, always an anti-Jewish pro-Terrorist new organizations So there are no Israeli terrorists? Hah!

[ May 03, 2003, 00:40: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

dogscoff

May 6th, 2003, 09:59 AM

The BBC, always an anti-Jewish pro-Terrorist new organizations
I take objection to this. There is a world of difference between reporting the palestinian side of the conflict (they give equal airtime to the israeli side) and being "anti-jewish". Even if they were anti-israeli (and they're not) they would not be "anti-jewish", since there are plenty of jews not living is Israel.

By deliberately blurring the boundaries between nation and religion, that article attempts to stir up racial hatred by simplifying the issue. By portraying even neutral outsiders like the BBC as hostile "pro-terrorist" organisations, they strengthen the "them and us" mentality that prolongs the conflict.

Aloofi

May 6th, 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I take objection to this. There is a world of difference between reporting the palestinian side of the conflict (they give equal airtime to the israeli side) and being "anti-jewish". Even if they were anti-israeli (and they're not) they would not be "anti-jewish", since there are plenty of jews not living is Israel.

By deliberately blurring the boundaries between nation and religion, that article attempts to stir up racial hatred by simplifying the issue. By portraying even neutral outsiders like the BBC as hostile "pro-terrorist" organisations, they strengthen the "them and us" mentality that prolongs the conflict.Oh well, I agree that is not the same to be anti-jewish and being anti-Israeli. The thing is that most people out there are either anti-jewish (the right) or anti-Israeli (the left).
Then there are some Christian fundamentalists that support Israel because Israel is an important piece of their "End of the world" scheme, so their support is anything but out of kindness.
In the end the Israeli Fundamentalist Groups, and they are just a few when compared to the Palestinian Fundamentalist organizations, are trying to play the "them against us" card in an intent to bust their numbers.
Israeli Fundamentalism have been slightly on the raise since September 2000 when the Palestinian launched their 2nd Intifadah, thus proving that Rabin and the Dovish gang were wrong granting the Palestinian authority without any commitment to a permanent peace.
You have to understand that during the 1st Intifada the Palestininas were throwing rocks at us, but now they are throwing the Kassam II and III rockets, home made mortars and suicide bombers. What have changed between the 2 Intifadas? What have gave them this capability?
Rabin's Palestinian Authority.

Fyron

May 6th, 2003, 04:53 PM

Umm... no Aloofi, most people are not like that. And it has nothing to do with being on the "left" or on the "right".

Cyrien

May 6th, 2003, 06:58 PM

A little humor to throw fire on the fuel.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress2.shtml

Aloofi

May 6th, 2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Cyrien:
A little humor to throw fire on the fuel.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress2.shtmlOk, I don't have audio. What is he saying? What's suppose to be funny?

metro637

May 8th, 2003, 05:44 PM

Aloofi what is your position.
Do you think there should be a Palestinian state that recognizes Israel?
Do you think that the Palestinians have no right to self government?
Do you think that Israel is justified in its treatment of the Palestinians?
Do you think that the Suicide Bombing is wrong but tanks are okay?
What is your solution to the problem?

geoschmo

May 8th, 2003, 09:51 PM

Salaam Pax made it through the war alive fortunatly. He has updated his blog.

http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com/

Geoschmo

tesco samoa

May 9th, 2003, 05:11 PM

Lets do a WMD update.

For those of you keeping score at home, here is our Altercation-exclusive State of the Union - Weapons of Mass Distraction scoreboard:

�...Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.�

Liters found in Iraq this week: Zero
Liters found in Iraq to date: Zero

�...Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.�

Liters found in Iraq this week: Zero
Liters found in Iraq to date: Zero

�...Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.�

Tons found in Iraq this week: Zero
Tons found in Iraq to date: Zero

Loser

May 9th, 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Salaam Pax made it through the war alive fortunatly. He has updated his blog.
...
GeoschmoYay!
Everyone who thinks about posting in this 'heated' thread should go read that.

Of WDMs, it is still too soon to expect results. I will hold that line for one year.

tesco samoa

May 11th, 2003, 03:57 AM

Nice

http://www.kron.com/global/story.asp?s=1268949&ClientType=Printable

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1607366.php

and one of the funniest tongue in check Posts

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=11355&mode=nested&order=0

P.S. SmirkingChimp is a little out there ( actually alot out there, read it and then look for supporting documents..... but i liked this one )

[ May 11, 2003, 03:14: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

geoschmo

May 11th, 2003, 04:17 AM

Freedom of speech? Or is it boys will be boys? The teacher's and parent's at Columbine got critisized in hindsight for disregarding comments made by Harris and Klebold. I guess you really are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Geoschmo

EDIT: So what's the deal here Tesco? Has this thread changed from a discussion of the rightness or wrongess of the war in general and is now a forum for any sort of complaint or disagreement with the administration and it's polcies? That's fine if it is. You have the freedom to express those opinions. But maybe we should be honest and change the title of the thread to "I hate George Bush."

[ May 11, 2003, 03:21: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

tesco samoa

May 11th, 2003, 04:24 AM

i do not know Geo. I posted the first one all buy itself... Then I re-read it and thought. Well what did they say. So off looking for the second one....

I think if I was the teacher I would have pulled them aside and told them that they should not say those words and explain why. And then leave it at that.

But I also believe that Oakland has zero tolerance ( which is a stupid stupid theory and practice ) so the teacher would have to bring this up.

I do think the pull aside is the thinking and harder path for the teacher to follow but the correct one.

It is one thing to say you disagree with the Prez. but it is quite another to state that he should be capped, and it should be delt with right there and then in a class room.

Just some thoughts - MAC 2002

tesco samoa

May 11th, 2003, 04:27 AM

hmm seems you edited you post while i was posting that Last one there... No I think that the title is still working and that these Posts are within context of this thread.

geoschmo

May 11th, 2003, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
I do think the pull aside is the thinking and harder path for the teacher to follow but the correct one.
You can think that, but you can't possibly know that without knowing the teacher and the students. Nothing in either article says anything about the students previous history. Nothing in there says whether the teacher maybe was right to take a threat seriously.

Geoschmo

Narrew

May 11th, 2003, 05:44 AM

My first thought was the teacher perhaps did over react by calling the Secret Service, but as Geo said, we dont have all the facts so perhaps the teacher did what she felt was right. I am surprised that the teacher made that call since that part of California is very liberal (that was the area where the teachers tried to make Ebonics a legal language).

The teacher Cassie Lopez said in the article "They were so shaken up and afraid", well the kids should be, perhaps they will think twice before they open their mouth again. I think we have gotten to the point (in the USA) that people think they are not responsible for their own actions.

There is one thing about what they did, the President had nothing to do about it. The Secret Service will do what ever THEY think is the best for the safety of the President (regardless of party affiliation).

Unknown_Enemy

May 11th, 2003, 08:47 PM

An interesting piece of reading that made me really uneasy. I am interested by comments of US citizen about it.

================================================== ===============

STRATFOR'S GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
http://www.stratfor.com
9 May 2003

================================================== ===============

* New Resolution Would Solidify U.S. position as Global Hegemon

.................................................. .................

Today's Featured Analysis

New Resolution Would Solidify U.S. Position as Global Hegemon

Summary

The United States has presented a resolution to the U.N. Security Council that would suspend the sanctions regime and transition the oil-for-food program in Iraq into a different form. The resolution is an attempt to get a U.N. stamp of approval on coalition efforts in Iraq -- which in reality will continue regardless of the Security Council's actions. But more than that, it is a challenge to every state that opposed U.S. policy in Iraq and a threat to those who might do so again.

Analysis

The United States presented a new resolution to the U.N. Security Council on May 9. At its core, the resolution would lift all sanctions against Iraq, legalize Iraqi oil sales, give the coalition de facto control over revenue from those sales for reconstruction purposes, and grant international approval to coalition efforts, both past and present.

But the resolution has a second implication. The Bush administration is giving countries that opposed its efforts in Iraq a Last chance to acquiesce to U.S. policy, or suffer the consequences of being in the bad graces of a global hegemon.

The Resolution

First and most important, the resolution would extend the legal cover granted by the oil-for-food program for another four months as the program is slowly phased out. This would allow Iraq to sell oil without the risk that proceeds could be seized by Iraq's numerous international creditors.

Second, income from Iraq's oil would flow into an Iraqi Assistance Fund instead of its oil-for-food escrow account -- which is controlled by the United Nations. Although the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank would hold seats on an advisory board that oversees the fund, the coalition ultimately would decide when and how to spend the money. This authority would apply retroactively to the existing oil-for-food program, making it unlikely that, for instance, the $1.6 billion in contracts currently held by Russian companies would ever generate revenue. This also would provide the legal basis for the World Bank and IMF to return to Iraq. Currently, since there is no recognized government, the two organizations have no legal standing to assist in the country's reconstruction.

Third, there would be no role for U.N. weapons inspectors, whose job would be formally taken over by the coalition.

Fourth, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan could appoint a coordinator to assist in reconstruction efforts. This coordinator would have, at best, moral authority and the ability to offer recommendations. But the day-to-day presence of a representative of the U.N. Secretariat would grant international approval, both de facto and de jure, to future coalition actions.

Fifth, the resolution declares that all products originating in Iraq and the proceeds from their sale "shall be immune from judicial, administrative, arbitration or any other proceedings arising in relation to claims against Iraq or the Authority [the coalition]." In other words, this means Iraq and its resources would belong to the coalition. All legal claims against the past and current government by countries that received oil contracts from the Hussein government, were owed debts by Hussein or lost business because of the coalition's actions would be null and void. The coalition's aim appears to be to protect future coalition government actions from any and all legal suits.

Finally, the resolution would lift all sanctions against Iraq except those prohibiting the import of weapons.

In short, the resolution touches on all of the issues to which the coalition of states that opposed U.S. efforts in Iraq object. It would retroactively legitimize U.S. actions, eject all non-coalition interests from Iraq and enshrine U.S. hegemony. The language of the resolution is crafted in a confrontational and at times almost condescending manner -- in a way that leaves little, if any, room for compromise.

The Meaning

The timing is close to perfect. The world is still stunned by the speed at which the United States conquered Iraq, and the anti-war coalition is quite spectacularly disorganized. Should the United States delay too long, there is a chance that the opposition could coalesce again into a coherent political force.

It is simply too early at this point to project how individual powers will react to the resolution. Many states -- including France, Germany and Russia -- this week have sounded notes of compromise on many aspects of recent U.S. policy, particularly in regard to the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. The new resolution, however, would take the U.S. position in Iraq light-years beyond what the anti-war states were willing to consider -- and even the United Kingdom, Washington's staunchest ally, cannot be happy with its wording.

That was precisely the intent.

The United States is generating a moment of crisis for the countries that opposed its Iraq policy to this point. The war in Iraq was not just about fighting al Qaeda or intimidating the Arab world into acquiescence; it was also about showing that the United States could not and would not be constrained by the international community or international law.

When viewed in this light, the new resolution is not merely the next logical step in U.S. efforts to secure Iraq, but also a blunt ultimatum to those who have opposed Washington over the past several months.

The rest of the world has seen clearly that the United States can and will use its full military strength to achieve its foreign policy goals. Washington is now presenting them with a choice : they can capitulate to American power and play Washington's game by Washington's rules, or they can continue to resist and freeze relations into a cycle of hostility.

With the proposed U.N. resolution, the Bush administration in essence is saying that it can accept that the stance of the anti-war coalition to this point was based on principle -- or greed. However, if the positions of anti-war states do not change, then their past opposition will be viewed as policy -- not as a fluke -- and will not go unpunished. Washington expects to be respected as global hegemon.

The resolution will not be popular. But Stratfor does not expect debate to be vociferous. The governments of each state on the Security Council -- once they stop fuming -- will have some serious thinking to do about their relationship with the United States. Stratfor already has detected a sort of frantic rush in national capitals as world leaders come to grips with this new American move.

In Washington's view, it is time for all of them to reassess their policies and find a means of fitting into the U.S. paradigm -- or to set their opposition to the United States in stone and suffer the consequences.

Loser

May 12th, 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
I am interested by comments of US citizen about it.Well, to start with the piece is written in a rather sensationalist style. It is clearly meant to arouse an emotional response more than it is meant to inform or even to rationally persuade.

However, the article does address a matter that should be seriously considered: how much power does the U.S. have?

That is a little scary. There is only one superpower left and it is the U.S. Would even a united Europe be able to thwart the wishes of the U.S.? Does the divided and contentious Europe we find now have a chance?

Next question, what does one do about this. Should a coalition of nations be formed solely to oppose the U.S.? Should nations oppose the U.S. in any of its endeavors simply because it is too strong? Does every action the U.S. takes seek only to add to its power?

The question is not, however, how much power should the U.S. have. You cannot simply take power away. The U.S. has this power because of its nature: because of its industry, because of its economy, because it has the third largest population in the world and because of what it is doing with that population. You could not take this power away without changing the nature of the U.S.; this may be possible, but it's not a realistic goal.

The question is how much authority should the U.S. have. Unfortunately there is no simple substitute for the power the U.S. uses to back the authority it has taken for itself. If another body were to be given authority over the U.S. that authority must also be backed by power.

The U.N. has some authority but it did not change Iraq, did not prevent genocide in Africa or Europe, did not slow nuclear programs in Pakistan or North Korea. (The one in India did come to a stop, and only resurfaced when Pakistan started getting close.) Is anything wrong with this? Perhaps not. Perhaps we should look at what the U.N. has done. Or perhaps the U.N. lacks power because it only derives its authority from the power and authority of its consistently bickering constituents.

Should the U.S. be solving the world problems? I doubt it. They aren't pursuing this goal, either. Really the U.S. only messes with the world to their own ends: for their security, for the stability of their interests, for their profit. Is that right? Should you expect anything different?

Could you or even your country do anything about it? Probably not, not even with all of your friends. Originally posted by tesco samoa:
It is one thing to say you disagree with the Prez. but it is quite another to state that he should be capped, and it should be delt with right there and then in a class room.Quite a different thing: this is one thing you cannot say with impunity. I'm not sure this was the best way to teach this little civics lesson, but it seems like a lot of people aren't aware that Freedom of Speech does not extend to Conspiracy to Commit [whatever].

If you are speaking about committing a crime, you can be charged with Conspiracy to Commit that crime, this covers talk of killing the president and means that talking about this is, eventually, going to get the attention of the Secret Service.

That, it seems to me, is the way it ought to be.

Aloofi

May 12th, 2003, 04:43 PM

Europe can do nothing about the US, but the truth is that the US can do nothing about Europe too.

I don't think the US population would support any kind of war against Europe, unless Europe strike first, that is.

But the real thing is the cost of any US-Europe confrontation:
-Can Europe fund an army comparable to the US?
-Can the US fund an army to oppose Europe without relocating its troops already defending important strategic objectives?

In my opinion, none of them is really willing to go to the end. It looks to me like they have opoussed interests, but those interests are not unreconcilables.
Doesn't matter how much the Euros hate the US, their goverments know that the Empire can be oppossed, but not fought. At the same time, the chickenhawk brigade in the White House knows that they can bark at Europe all they want, but they can't bite.

.

.

[ May 12, 2003, 15:44: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Aloofi

May 12th, 2003, 05:13 PM

Article:

Wrong Turn

by Abraham D. Sofaer (Commentary) May 12, 2003

Immediately after the 1991 Gulf War, the first Bush administration convened in Madrid an international conference on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

This was an event that political leaders all over the world had been pursuing as if it were the holy grail of international diplomacy. It set in motion a decade of "peacemaking" that included the treaty between Israel and Jordan but whose most visible fruit was the Oslo accords of 1993.

In recent months, three years into the bloody Palestinian assault on Israel that the Oslo peace process became, the same dynamic has once again been in play, as international diplomats and government officials have scrambled to take advantage of the anticipated defeat of Saddam Hussein by pushing forward their preferred solutions.

President Bush himself predicted in late February that "success in Iraq could . . . begin a new stage of Middle Eastern peace," while England and other European nations, keen to demonstrate their good faith to the Arab world, have gone much farther. In the very first week of the war, the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, complaining about an alleged double standard when it came to "injustice against the Palestinians," equated U.N. resolutions concerning Saddam Hussein's threats to international peace with those condemning Israel on a range of less significant matters.

A more evenhanded view underlies the latest diplomatic initiative to address the Israel-Palestinian dispute. This is the famous "road map" prepared by the "quartet" of the United States, the European Union, the U.N. and Russia. The road map, released earlier this week, proposes a two-state solution to the conflict, to be reached in three phases.

In Phase I, the Palestinians are to "declare" an end to violence and terrorism; undertake "visible" efforts to prevent attacks on Israelis, consolidate all security forces under an "empowered" interior minister, and restructure Palestinian institutions through numerous, detailed measures.

Israel, for its part, is to call for an end to violence against Palestinians; cooperate in rebuilding a viable Palestinian security force; cease all actions "undermining trust," including deportations, demolition of homes and destruction of Palestinian infrastructure; take measures to improve the humanitarian situation; and immediately "dismantle" settlement outPosts erected since March 2001" and freeze all other settlement activity, including "natural growth."

All this is to happen by next month. Then comes Phase II, which foresees the "option" of creating a Palestinian state, with provisional borders, attributes of sovereignty and maximum territorial continuity; the completion date for this phase is the end of 2003. Phase III, which is to result in a final agreement between the parties settling all outstanding issues, is to be completed by the end of 2005.

The road map was given a major boost on March 14 when President Bush affirmed his support for it and promised to publish it as soon as the Palestinians appointed a new prime minister with "real authority." British Prime Minister Tony Blair promptly signaled his readiness to put pressure on Israel to move the process forward whether Palestinian violence ceases or not. Meanwhile, both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have claimed to accept the road map "in principle"--a standard Middle East negotiating ploy--although both sides have major differences with it. In particular, Ariel Sharon's government has insisted that Palestinians must end all attacks before Israel is required to take any steps on the proposed "road."

Quite apart from its wildly optimistic timetable, many substantive objections can and should be raised to the road map. Still, it may be stipulated that the plan's aim--a two-state solution--is a reasonable one, accepted by the present Israeli government. But the mere recitation of a valid aim, even when coupled with a scheme for negotiations and escalating concessions, will hardly suffice to realize the peace envisioned by the road map's authors. The problem is that this road map, like many plans for Middle East peace, expects to bring an end to Palestinian violence against Israel without addressing the reasons why the Palestinians have deliberately and repeatedly chosen that path.

Dennis Ross, the former U.S. negotiator for the Middle East, recently admitted that ever since the Last Gulf War, he and other U.S. negotiators failed to take seriously the Palestinian Authority's steadfast refusal to end violence. (As Mr. Ross put it in State Department doublespeak: "The prudential issues of compliance were neglected and politicized by the Americans in favor of keeping the peace process afloat.") Instead, in the face of the continuing violence, the U.S. kept pressing Israel to make further concessions, thereby convincing Palestinians that they could go on cheating and killing and still procure the benefits for which they had been negotiating. In the end, it seemed reasonable to suppose that they might even force Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza as it had been forced to withdraw from southern Lebanon in the summer of 2000.

But Palestinian violence is a much more serious and difficult problem than even Dennis Ross now admits. It is the product of an environment that fosters, shelters, encourages and rewards acts aimed at nullifying Israel's very existence. And that environment is itself the creation not only of the Palestinians, or of the Arabs, but also of the international community--including the U.S. To change this situation requires changing not just the actions and attitudes of Palestinians but the policies and practices of others, again including the U.S. No recognition of these facts, let alone any acknowledgment of the need to do something about them, has been made part of the road map--which is again why it shares the basic flaw of every Middle East peace plan that has preceded it.

The policies and practices I have in mind can be broken down into categories, of which the first has to do with terrorism.

The United States portrays itself, properly, as leading the world-wide effort to combat terrorism. Some longstanding American policies, however, have contributed to terrorism, and especially to terrorism against Israel. Although steps have been taken to rectify matters in the wake of September 11, terrorists and supporters of terrorism continue to be abetted by the U.S. in their determination to control the destiny of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Consider, first, the longstanding strategy of Arab states and the Palestine Liberation Organization to keep as many Palestinians as possible living under horrible conditions in refugee camps, close to Israel. The camps, first set up after the 1948 war that followed the establishment of the state of Israel, are administered by an arm of the United Nations, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency. UNRWA now spends more than $400 million a year to assist a population that has swollen over the past half century to some 4.5 million, relatively few of whom are refugees by any accepted definition of the term. The whole system could not have been better designed both to endanger Israel's security and to damage its moral reputation.

In the late 1980s, when I was running the legal adviser's office in the State Department, my colleague Nicholas Rostow and I proposed to Secretary George Shultz that the U.S. move toward ending its financial support of UNRWA programs that perpetuated the exploitation of refugees as tools of the radical Palestinian cause. The "building"--as the department is called by insiders--rose up in opposition. Our diplomats acknowledged that the camps were awful places that bred hatred and terrorism. But, they claimed, it was too late to do anything about it, and anyway the camps would disappear once peace was achieved. They declined to consider the possibility that the camps were helping to prevent peace from being achieved.

What would an alternative look like? It would include plans for building permanent homes for Palestinian refugees within Palestinian territories on the West Bank or in nearby states. As the scholar Scott B. Lasensky has recently suggested, incentive programs could also be put in place to encourage refugees to relocate and neighboring Arab states to accept them. Such resettlement could commence immediately; as long as it does not, we will be continuing to aid in solidifying the sentiments that lead to terrorism.

Second, the Palestinian educational system is an abomination; it, too, is largely funded by the U.N., with the substantial support of American taxpayers. In their schools, Palestinian children are taught mendacious Versions of their own history as well as of Jewish culture, history and beliefs. Generations have been fed on propaganda that denies the legitimacy of the state of Israel while simultaneously glorifying intolerance, fanaticism and "martyrdom."

Very little that is actually useful--engineering, computer technology, science, finance--is taught in these schools. In the private, religiously funded schools, things are still worse. There, in the words of Itamar Marcus, "children have been taught to hate, and to die for Allah. Their childhood has been destroyed by indoctrination to hate and kill Jews as well as Americans and Westerners in general."

The U.N. and the U.S. have allowed these terrible practices to continue for years. Although efforts have been made recently to restrict the flow of funds to some schools, little if anything has been done to halt the teachings themselves. How can Palestinians realistically be expected to accept Israel as long as they continue to convey to their children that Israel is unacceptable, and that terrorism against it is a noble undertaking?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sofaer, a senior fellow at Stanford Univerity's Hoover Institution served as legal adviser tp the State Department from 1985 to 1990. The complete article of the author appears in the May 2003 edition of Commentary.

oleg

May 12th, 2003, 05:16 PM

A bit of news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3018063.stm

Now we know Iraq did NOT have any WMD whatsoever.
Public was duped by Bush & Blair. If I had any doubts, then none anymore. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Loser

May 12th, 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
I don't think the US population would support any kind of war against Europe, unless Europe strike first, that is.There is a more important reason this will not happen. Democracies do not make war on each other. "Free" countries do not make war on each other. It is an observable fact os history and our best hope for world peace.

Think of all the wonderful things we will be able to focus on when we no longer have to worry about national defense. Then, maybe, some nation can give Marx' vision a proper try.

Loser

May 12th, 2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
Now we know Iraq did NOT have any WMD whatsoever.
Public was duped by Bush & Blair. If I had any doubts, then none anymore.I hope someone at least read that article. they had consistently found targets identified by Washington to be inaccurate, or to have been looted and burned.That doesn't mean nothing was there, just that it was destroyed. The force will hand over to a new team, the Iraq Survey Group.The matter is still being investigated, just by a different group. Likely a group more suited to the long term work it will take to actually find these things or conclusively prove they are not there. "Why are we doing any planned targets?" said Army Chief Warrant Officer Richard L Gonzales, leader of Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, reports the Washington Post.

"Answer me that. We know they're empty."This guy knows why we didn't find anything. That pulled team was only looking in sites the U.S. knew of from before the war. Saddam's men would have had to have been fools not to move things that had been sitting there that long.

This kind of jump-on-what-you've-got behavior reminds me of some Bible-belt fundamentalist pointing at every failed attempt to pin down a 'missing link' as proof that evolution is bunk and as reason to teach creationism in school.

It's the same mistake being made by the other side. Every vague chance of an NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) site is being reported as a 'find' before the determination could possibly be made. Both sides need to wait until word is really in. One way or the other the matter will not be decided before the passage of many moons.

[Edit: [qoute] is not [quote]]

[ May 12, 2003, 16:55: Message edited by: Loser ]

Wardad

May 12th, 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
... Democracies do not make war on each other. "Free" countries do not make war on each other. It is an observable fact os history and our best hope for world peace....
[/QB]The Iroquois tribes were a confederation of 5 tribes. Each tribe had it's own laws and government. They were more representative then most governments. If you consider the established shared influence of women as a hallmark of democracy, well then they were the most democratic of their time.

So what happened to the Iroquois tribes? They were split up and destroyed by siding on both sides of a factional fight between two almost democratic societies, Britain and the USA.

[ May 12, 2003, 17:19: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Aloofi

May 12th, 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Wardad:
So what happened to the Iroquois tribes? They were split up and destroyed by siding on both sides a factional fight between two almost democratic societies, Britain and the USA.Good point. I guess non-western democracies didn't count. Hope that's been fixed.

Loser

May 12th, 2003, 06:23 PM

Wardad:
A matriarchal or matrilineal society does not a democracy make. There have been many cultures with matriarchal or matrilineal bases who were not anything close to democracies.

I understand a lot of western education may lead someone to believe that a government of women is somehow a better government, but it is not true. Matriarchies are not less likely to get in wars, promote slavery, or practice euthanasia. They are, however, less likely to survive.

The League of Five Nations, the Iroquois Tribes, whatever you want to call them, many have been close to a democracy, but that does not dispute the "democracies don't make war on each other" rule. Neither the English Colonies, nor the British Empire, nor the French Empire were democracies. Democracies will make war on other governments, but they will not make war on each other.

geoschmo

May 12th, 2003, 07:06 PM

Loser, simply because they haven't in the past doesn't prove they never will. Up to this point in history Democracies are still fairly rare. They've been around for thousands of years, but it's only been in the Last 60 years we've had more than one or two running at the same time. The bunch we have now have all been pretty dependant on each other until the Last ten years to defend against the threat of the communist bloc, perceived or real. Now that that is gone we'll get a good test of your theory in the next 50 to hundred years I think.

Geoschmo

tesco samoa

May 12th, 2003, 07:07 PM

oleg
perhaps the us inspectors did not get an email of Powell's PowerPoint Presentaion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

So what was the reason again for war on Iraq ??

Aloofi

May 12th, 2003, 07:09 PM

Check this link. Probably some of you remember this from sept/2000.

The Photo that Started it All (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/The_Photo_that_Started_it_All.asp)

Aloofi

May 12th, 2003, 07:15 PM

Check out this one too:

Dishonest Reporting 'Award' for 2002 (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Dishonest_Reporting_Award_for_2002.asp)

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/images/banners/honestPop.gif

[ May 12, 2003, 18:30: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Loser

May 12th, 2003, 07:34 PM

Geoschmo:
You are correct, this is also a "we'll see" situation. However, I believe there is more historical support for this theory than you imply. I will not be able to back this up right now. Sorry about that.

Tesco:
I would say that this 'war' was about securing an American position and installing American influence in a strategic location in the Middle East.

Wardad

May 12th, 2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Wardad:
A matriarchal or matrilineal society does not a democracy make...They were not a Matriarchal society, but Women did have influence.

I do not see how early USA could be fairly considered a democracy.
52% of the population (Women) could not vote.
Slaves were not considered men, and could not vote.
Early on in some states only land owners could vote.

[ May 12, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Wardad ]

rextorres

May 12th, 2003, 07:45 PM

The main justification for the "Photo-op War" was that we could not wait for the original inspectors to do their work. Well if the pro war people could not wait then why do the "unduped" have to wait for evidence that this war was worth wasting tax dollars? I keep reading that we should be patient - But I ask how long?

"As long as it takes" was not good enough for the pro war people so it's not good enough for me.

With the Bush Economy in full swing I suppose we'll have to wait for people to admit there weren't any wmd until after the next election.

Loser

May 12th, 2003, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Wardad:
They were not a Matriarchal society, but Women did have influence.I believe the majority of northeastern native american cultures were matrilinial. And I believe in the agricultural Iroquois specifically the women owned the land and the men owned the seed. I assumed that's what you were referring to as it is consistantly brought up to me by local feminists. Knee-jerk reaction, sorry if I misunderstood you. Originally posted by Wardad:
I do not see how early USA could be fairly considered a democracy.I agree wholeheartedly, but if only the Iriquoi were close to democracy at the time, how does this become an statement to detract from the "democaries don't make war on each other" theory?

Fyron

May 12th, 2003, 09:03 PM

No nation has ever had a democracy, actually, as that requires all citizens to be able to vote on every issue and to directly participate in every level of government. Not even Athens was a democracy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Most countries that people label as "democracies" actually have some form of a republic, in which people are in one way or another chosen to vote for large blocks of people in government. A republic does not require that all people living in the country to be considered citizens or to be given the right to vote. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. The term "democracy" is often fallaciously used to describe a wide range of government types that are not democracies.

[ May 12, 2003, 20:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Aloofi

May 12th, 2003, 09:29 PM

Fyron, for an Imperator, you know a lot about democracy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

geoschmo

May 12th, 2003, 09:57 PM

Fyron, your post is pretty non-helpful to the topic at hand. Yes of course by the strictest definition possible for the term democracy, few if any nations have ever had such a system. However the term has evolved over the years to encompass many similer forms of government. According to Webster's Online dictionary "Democracy" is defined as...
Main Entry: de�moc�ra�cy
Pronunciation: di-'m�-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
(I added the bold for emphasis)

This definition would fit any of the governments commonly referred to as democracies today. Refuting this is just arguing semantics instead of contributing to the point of the discussion at hand.

Geoschmo

[ May 12, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Wardad

May 12th, 2003, 10:01 PM

Imperator was not found in the Cambridge Dictionary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

I did find: imperative (URGENT) adjective
extremely important or urgent; needing to be done or given attention immediately. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

So an Imperator must create urgency and need attention. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
correct usage: The Imperator threw a tantrum. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Aloofi

May 12th, 2003, 10:20 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is our daily anti-Fyron moment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

geoschmo

May 12th, 2003, 10:53 PM

I am not anti-Fyron at all. I just like batting his ears now and then. Got to keep the young ones in line. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Wardad

May 12th, 2003, 11:08 PM

I am not anti Fryon either.
It is just that his comments on what should or should not be posted, and his definition of humor makes a good target for a humorous jab. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Go Ahead Aloofi, leave your self open... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Narrew

May 13th, 2003, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by rextorres:
"As long as it takes" was not good enough for the pro war people so it's not good enough for me.
Umm "As long as it takes" = 12 years.

That is how long it took before someone said enough is enough of Saddams jerking the weapon inspectors around. It could be argued that someone got tired of the UN dragging its feet, as we dig deeper and see that the UN knew that the "oil for food" was actually "oil for palaces" (ok, but we can agree that it DID NOT get to the Iraqi people, unless you count food given to the children in prison).

It will not take 12 years to figure out the WMD one-way or the other. I still think that what ever is found will NEVER satisfy the Bush haters, but that is politics.

But I can guarantee one thing, that if there are NO WMDs found, this President will not pass the buck to a scape goat, he will assume full responsibility for the action taken.

[ May 12, 2003, 23:24: Message edited by: Narrew ]

Fyron

May 13th, 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Wardad:
Imperator was not found in the Cambridge Dictionary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

I did find: imperative (URGENT) adjective
extremely important or urgent; needing to be done or given attention immediately. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

So an Imperator must create urgency and need attention. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
correct usage: The Imperator threw a tantrum. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Imperator is the latin word for emperor.

Geo, as I have said many times, dictionary definitions are not valid for complex terms. They simplify the terms, and often miss all of the subtleties of the meanings. They often reflect common misconceptions of words too. And, my post was made because there were people using democracy to mean different things, and trying to argue against each other. Some of the counter-arguments made no sense as they were. It was my hope that people would start using more accurate terms to avoid such confusions.

tesco samoa

May 13th, 2003, 01:05 AM

narrew it is not about peoples feelings towards bush.

Some of the things it is about is

International law.
deceit.
War.
Incompetence.
WMD
International alliances.

Fyron

May 13th, 2003, 01:26 AM

Tesco, most of the people that post for or against Bush's policies do so only because they like or hate him. Very few people have an open mind and look at the whole situation, instead of saying "Republican = evil".

Cyrien

May 13th, 2003, 02:46 AM

You mean Republican doesn't = evil? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif There goes my entire conception of the world! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

rextorres

May 13th, 2003, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by Narrew:
[QUOTE]But I can guarantee one thing, that if there are NO WMDs found, this President will not pass the buck to a scape goat, he will assume full responsibility for the action taken.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 have an idea:

Why don't we just cut taxes on all the wealthy Iraqis that will solve all that country's problems.

[ May 13, 2003, 02:20: Message edited by: rextorres ]

geoschmo

May 13th, 2003, 03:32 AM

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