Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
US running scared of Iraq elections
    #2251755 -

Why the US is running scared of elections in Iraq

Washington's plan to transfer power without a direct vote is a fraud

Jonathan Steele
Monday January 19, 2004
The Guardian

The occupation of Iraq continues to get worse for George Bush and Tony Blair. The deaths of at least 20 people in a suicide bomb attack outside the coalition headquarters in Baghdad yesterday morning underlines the spiralling unrest in the country. The toll of US casualties since Saddam Hussein's capture is higher than in the same period before it. Angry protests over unemployment and petrol shortages have erupted in several cities in the south, in areas under British control.
Above all, Washington's plans for handing power to an unelected group of Iraqis is being strongly challenged by Iraq's majority Shia community. The occupiers who invaded Iraq in the name (partly) of bringing democracy are being accused of flouting democracy themselves.

Oh yes, and then there's the small matter of the weapons of mass destruction on which Saddam increasingly appears to be the man who had truth on his side. When he said he had destroyed them years ago, he, rather than Bush and Blair, was the man not lying.

While the Hutton inquiry looms as the main Iraq worry for the prime minister, the primary problem for Bush is the chaos in Iraq. His plans for minimising Iraq as an election issue are in tatters. They relied on three things: the capture of Saddam; a reduction in the toll of US dead and maimed; and the start of a process of handing power to Iraqis.

The first was accomplished in December when the former dictator's successful eight-month evasion of massive hunting parties came to an end. But instead of it leading to a collapse of resistance, US casualties have gone on growing. Bush's always dubious argument that Saddam was running the insurgency from various well-hidden quarters has fallen apart.

Baathists who did not want to be seen as defending a hated leader were freed from that image. Other branches of the resistance were never Saddam supporters. It also transpires that Saddam rejected part of the resistance. Although he called for jihad against the occupiers in the tapes slipped out to al-Jazeera and other Arab media, he was writing more careful private notes to his friends. He urged them to beware of the fundamentalists - an ironic sign that even in his months of beleaguered clandestinity, he remained faithful to the secular principles which had made him attractive to western governments in the 1980s, when the main enemy was seen as Iran.

With casualties stubbornly continuing to remain high, the US is now banking on its project for transferring power to Iraqis this summer. This is an acceleration of Washington's earlier plans. The UN security council resolution it pushed through unanimously last October called on Iraq's governing council to draw up a timetable for drafting a constitution and holding elections. It also called for the UN "to strengthen its vital role in Iraq".

But the White House has a habit of ignoring the UN resolutions it sponsors. Just as it went to war without a second resolution, after getting unanimity on one which most member states did not feel contained a trigger, the October 2003 resolution was also ignored. A month after it was passed, the US came up with a plan which made no mention of any role for the UN and cobbled together an extraordinary process of "caucuses" to pick a government.

At least in Iowa, the Democratic party caucuses involve elections. Not in the US plan for Iraq. The US is proposing that "notables" in each province attend these caucuses to appoint an assembly which would select a government. Not surprisingly, the Shia leadership smells a rat. After generations of being excluded from power, first by the British occupiers in 1920, and then by successive Sunni governments up to the one led by Saddam, they are angry.

Their spiritual head, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has repeatedly denounced the plan. He wants direct elections. His legitimate fear is that the US wants to control the selection of a government because it thinks the wrong people will win, in particular the Shia. Washington is also worried that Sunni fundamentalists and even some Baathists might do well in the poll.

The other new element in the US plan was that power would be transferred to the new government at the end of June. This would allow Bush to claim mission accomplished. Barely a year after the invasion, Iraqis would have a legitimate government at last. It would invite US troops to stay, but these could gradually be reduced in number or pulled back to bases in Iraq, as new Iraqi security forces were built up. US casualties would fall, the invasion would have been legitimised, and Messrs Dean and Clark would have to shut up.

Now the whole thing is in ruins. Ayatollah Sistani refuses to drop his opposition, and people were out on the street in Basra last week to support his line. Protests may spread to other Shia cities. The latest allegations of US and British torture of detainees will only inflame passions. Worst of all for Washington, Sistani has made it clear that no government which is undemocratically appointed will have the right to ask American troops to stay.

Washington is trying to argue that if there are to be direct elections, the transfer of power will have to be delayed. Sistani rejects that. His supporters say the oil-for-food ration-card lists which covered the whole Iraqi population can easily be used in place of the poll cards which Washington says would take at least a year to prepare. Unlike Afghanistan, with its remote villages and months of snow which make polling stations hard to deploy and staff, Iraq's geography is no obstacle to quick elections.

The moment of truth for the administration is also one for the United Nations. Having snubbed the UN for so long, the White House is turning to Kofi Annan at a meeting in New York today to bail it out. Like his Shia forebears who refused to meet the British after 1920 for fear of being denounced as stooges and sell-outs, Sistani refuses to talk to Paul Bremer, the top US envoy, or his British colleagues. He meets Iraqis who bring messages from the coalition authorities, and he meets the UN. So Washington is pressing the UN either to go and persuade Sistani that elections are impossible, or to monitor the caucuses and give them its seal of approval.

Annan should resist the poisoned chalice. He should support the concept of direct elections. It need not mean a delay in sovereignty for Iraq. Five months are not too long to prepare a vote. Alternatively, the UN should offer to take over responsibility for the entire transition to Iraqi rule, as many member governments originally hoped.

Washington's plan for a transfer of power is a facade. The real intent is to get Bush re-elected and continue the occupation by indirect means. The UN should have no part of it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1126178,00.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2253481 -

Alex123 said:
Why the US is running scared of elections in Iraq



Iraq has no right to have elections. We are their occupiors now, and we make the law. They violated a cease fire agreement which lead to us re-initializing the hostilities against them and their leader, and we won (by a gigantic margin). We owe them nothing. If we decide to allow them to vote, that is our good grace, if we don't, that is our decision. It's not like these people had democracies before we liberated them. Take it or leave it. We won.
Quote:
Washington's plan to transfer power without a direct vote is a fraud
Washington's plan for a transfer of power is a facade. The real intent is to get Bush re-elected and continue the occupation by indirect means. The UN should have no part of it.



With a closing argument like this, the objectivity of this story is very apparent.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2253632 -

exactly what cease-fire terms did the iraqis violate?? no banned weapons have been found in iraq.. nor is there any other evidence that such a violation occurred...paul o'neill has confirmed that the war was all about oil...one could argue that there are no such things as "rights" as far as oil in the middle east is concerned.. but thats beside the point...get the facts straight first.. and pls spare us all the self-righteous neocon braggadocio (nytimes)...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2253642 -

exactly what cease-fire terms did the iraqis violate?? no banned weapons have been found in iraq.. nor is there any other evidence that such a violation occurred...

July 1994 - Iraq destroys 480,000 liters of chemical agents in accordance to demands of the UNSCOM. (Oldaker 1996, 2)

14 June 1996 - UNSCOM inspectors begin dismantling a biological weapons facility in central Iraq, despite pleas from Baghdad to salvage some dual-use items. (Reuters, 14 June 1996)

End October 1997 - Iraq refuses entry to three Americans on a team of UN arms inspectors, and warns Iraqi anti-aircraft guns might fire upon US U-2 spy planes if surveillance flights continue. The UN sends a high-level diplomatic mission to resolve the budding crisis and Iraq delays the expulsion order against the American inspectors. (Washington Post, 3 November 1997, A1; Financial Times, 5 November 1997, 6)

12 November 1997 - The UN Security Council unanimously approves a travel ban for senior Iraqi officials and demands that Iraq stop interfering with UN weapons inspectors. Iraq insists that the weapons teams have fewer Americans. When Iraq refuses to comply with UN demands, the weapons inspectors leave the country. Fears mount that Iraq could revive chemical and biological weapons programs without the oversight of the international community. Russia and France push for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, while Washington does not rule out a resort to the use of force. The United States increases its military presence in the Gulf. (Washington Post, 13 November 1997, A1; Washington Post, 18 November 1997, A22)

21 November 1997 - After intense diplomacy by Security Council members, particularly Russia, Iraq agrees to allow UN weapon inspectors back into the country. Russia agrees to push for concessions, such as the easing of the UN sanctions, in return. The Security Council rebuffs a Russian request to declare Iraq free of nuclear weapons and nearly free of prohibited missiles. (Washington Post, 21 November 1997, A1; New York Times, 22 November 1997, A1)

16 January 1998 - A weapons inspection team leaves Iraq after being barred for three days from conducting an inspection. The UN Security Council deplores Iraq's decision, which constitutes a clear violation of UN resolutions. (CRS, 6 March 1998, 3)

17 January 1998 - Saddam Hussein announces that Iraq will expel all weapons inspectors if sanctions against Iraq are not removed within six months. (CRS, 6 March 1998, 3)

3 February 1998 - US Secretary of Defense Cohen warns that if diplomacy fails, the United States will wage a "significant" military campaign against Iraq, "far more than what has been experienced in the past." (CRS, 6 March 1998, 5)

29 April 1998 - UNSCOM chief arms inspector Richard Butler reveals that experts discovered mustard gas in Iraqi artillery shells found at an ammunitions depot in 1996. The discovery raises new questions about similar shells that remain unaccounted for. (New York Times, 29 April 1998, A10)

24 June 1998 - Contradicting claims it never weaponized the substance, UNSCOM chief Butler says tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland show Iraq loaded deadly VX gas onto a missile. Iraq claims bias in the test of warhead pieces; similar weapons fragments are tested in Switzerland and France to see whether the finding can be confirmed. (USIS, 24 June 1998; New York Times, 25 June 1998, A10)

23 July 1998 - Iraqi authorities refuse to give UNSCOM documents that list weapons used by the Iraqi Air Force during the war with Iran. (Washington Post, 24 July 1998, A28)

5 August 1998 - Iraq restricts activities of IAEA and orders an end to all UNSCOM inspections, except for those specifically approved by the Iraqi government. It allows long distance monitoring with video camera, as well as air, water and soil sampling, to continue. President Hussein demands that UNSCOM be restructured, Butler replaced, and that UNSCOM move its headquarters out of the United States. (Financial Times, 6 August 1998, 1; USIS, 6 August 1998; New York Times, 15 September 1998, A3; Wall Street Journal, 2 October 1998, A16)

3 September 1998 - In a letter to Congress, President Clinton denounces Iraq's failure to allow weapons inspections, warns that, "If the Council fails to persuade the Iraqi regime to resume cooperation, all other options are on the table ." (USIS, 3 September 1998)

14 September 1998 - Iraq's National Assembly threatens to end all cooperation with inspectors unless the Security Council resumes regular reviews of the sanctions. (New York Times, 15 September 1998, A3)

31 October 1998 - Iraq stops all cooperation with weapons inspectors, banning arms inspectors from visiting sites that have already been inspected and were being monitored by UNSCOM. Baghdad says sensors and monitors placed in sites can continued operating and also exempt the IAEA from its latest decision. (Financial Times, 2 November 1998, 1; Wall Street Journal, 2 November 1998, A4)

20 November 1998 - Shortly after UNSCOM inspectors resume their duties in Iraq, the Iraqi government refuses to provide 12 documents relating to weapons inventories. Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Riyadh al-Qaysi accuses the inspectors of "unjustifiably" prolonging their work, thereby extending the embargo. (Washington Post, 24 November 1998, A25; 18 November 1998, A33; Financial Times, 24 November 1998, 6)

19 December 1998 - After four consecutive nights of bombing, the US and Britain end the attack on Iraq. President Clinton declares Operation Desert Fox a success at degrading Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program and his conventional military capacity. In all, there were about 600 bombs and 415 cruise missiles fired at approximately 100 targets. (Washington Post, 20 December 1998, A1; New York Times, 20 December 1998, 24; Wall Street Journal, 21 December 1998, A3; 22 December 1998, A20)

15 December 1999 - Iraq refuses to allow IAEA inspectors to check Iraq's uranium stockpile as required under the 1968 nuclear nonproliferation treaty. (New York Times, 15 December 1999, A13; 16 December 1999, A5)

19 December 1999 - Iraq officially rejects resolution 1284 and demands unconditional lifting of sanctions. (Washington Post, 19 December 1999, A54)

(emphasis mine)

complete timeline here.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2253661 -

Annapurna1 said:
exactly what cease-fire terms did the iraqis violate?? no banned weapons have been found in iraq.. nor is there any other evidence that such a violation occurred...paul o'neill has confirmed that the war was all about oil...one could argue that there are no such things as "rights" as far as oil in the middle east is concerned.. but thats beside the point...get the facts straight first.. and pls spare us all the self-righteous neocon braggadocio


Their is no need to be harsh or condecending, it won't make me accept or respect your position anymore. After the first Gulf War, the one where we liberated Kuwait, Saddam Hussein signed a conditional cease fire to end hostilities. One of those agreements was that he allow UN Inspectors full and total access to inspect for banned weapons. The second that he kicked them out, he violated the conditions of the cessation of hostilities and thus, we would be within our rights to have attacked and overthrown him at that time.

If you and I are in a fight of some sorts, then you surrender and ask me to stop beating you up and state that you will agree to the terms of my cessation of hostilities, then you break your promise, the cease fire is off, and the fight is back on.


"mushmaster"s post from the UN Website more clearly details this, good post yet again!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2253706 -

i may be mistaken..but from what i understand..the inspectors were booted in 1998 after it was discovered that CIA moles had been planted amongst the UNMOVIC units to gather information for a series of bombing raids that were staged a month later...and that could also be construed as a violation of the cease-fire on our part...

but irregardless of whether or not the iraqis were in violation.. o'neill's statements strongly suggest that was not the reason the war was launched...and the "violation" used as a pretext to launch the war..that being the WMDs..has been proven false...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2253755 -

*irregardless is not a word. :crazy:


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2253760 -

Annapurna1 said:
i may be mistaken..but from what i understand..the inspectors were booted in 1998 after it was discovered that CIA moles had been planted amongst the UNMOVIC units to gather information for a series of bombing raids that were staged a month later...and that could also be construed as a violation of the cease-fire on our part...



The instant that any offical of the Iraqi government or military prohibited any UN inspectors from doing anything, the cease fire was null and the war was back on
Quote:
but irregardless of whether or not the iraqis were in violation.. o'neill's statements strongly suggest that was not the reason the war was launched...and the "violation" used as a pretext to launch the war..that being the WMDs..has been proven false...


What about the post that "luvdemshrooms" put up that talked about how the war was being planned post Bush administration era? I think that more people in here need to have an understanding of what "proof" is, and what "lies" are so that the statements will be more correct.

If we had two reasons, but the first one (that being the violation of the cease fire agreement) was valid, then it doesn't matter what our other motives were, really, because the primary motive was valid.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2254164 -

We still have a vew more undesireable voters to blow up.  :evil:


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2254746 -

IMAO..we deliberately put the iraqis in a double bind in this case...if thats so..then pushing aside the legal technicalities..the primary motive was still oil...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2254766 -

Uh-huh. How exactly?

Did this war somehow create more oil?


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2254848 -

not created more oil..just stole it...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2254859 -

You mean we don't have to pay for oil anymore?


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2254894 -

troll!!..in the dungeon!!...troll in the dungeon!!...thought you ought to know...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2254896 -

So we still have to pay for the oil then?

Doesn't sound stolen to me.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2255524 -

Of course we still have to pay for the oil. What matters is WHO is (or will be) making a profit off of oil production in Iraq that wouldn't have, had the U.S. not gone into Iraq. There is also the very important issue of what currency is mandated for purchases of Iraqi oil. It is my understanding that Iraq had decided to accept purchases in currencies OTHER than the U.S. dollar. This of course was changed after the U.S. invasion.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Evolving]
    #2255834 -

read the article by george soros...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2255861 -

TheOneYouKnow said:
Iraq has no right to have elections. We are their occupiors now, and we make the law.  They violated a cease fire agreement which lead to us re-initializing the hostilities against them and their leader, and we won (by a gigantic margin).  We owe them nothing. If we decide to allow them to vote, that is our good grace, if we don't, that is our decision.  It's not like these people had democracies before we liberated them. Take it or leave it. We won.



:smirk: damn, im getting psycic now...i remeber saying how americas statement of liberation was bullshit, and if the above rant is any reflection of americas true feelings, your in for another viet nam, because the other arabs won't back down...

Again i am amazed by the stupidity of ppl, and thier ignorance and the way they justify thier actions.  No wonder noone likes americans.


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2255957 -

The instant that any offical of the Iraqi government or military prohibited any UN inspectors from doing anything, the cease fire was null and the war was back on

If that were truly the case, then why did Powell, Bush and Blair spend so much time trying (unsuccessfully) to get another resolution through the UN authorising force? Why spend all that time and effort and create all of the animosity with Germany, France and Russia if it was as simple as just starting the old war again? If this was such a clear-cut case, why didn't the UN vote go through? Why the 'dirty tricks' campaign of bugging UN officials in an attempt to swing crucial votes? Why the deception over WMDs?

The Bush administration may have argued that this technicality legitimised the war, but that doesn't instantly make it so.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Edame]
    #2256197 -


If that were truly the case, then why did Powell, Bush and Blair spend so much time trying (unsuccessfully) to get another resolution through the UN authorising force? Why spend all that time and effort and create all of the animosity with Germany, France and Russia if it was as simple as just starting the old war again? If this was such a clear-cut case, why didn't the UN vote go through?

look into the financial ties between these countries and hussein's iraq and it should become clear to you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2256427 -

yeah, they were getting better deals than america...it actually does explain alot.


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Azmodeus]
    #2256763 -

Azmodeus said:
:smirk: damn, im getting psycic now...i remeber saying how americas statement of liberation was bullshit, and if the above rant is any reflection of americas true feelings, your in for another viet nam, because the other arabs won't back down...



If at any time I've stated or alluded to me being the spokesperson for the whole of the American populace, I hereby renounce that and state that I am, in fact, not the spokesman for all of the Americans. If the other Arabs don't back down, from what I'm not sure, I'm sure we can teach them a lesson as well.  When we went into Kuwait, and then Iraq, the first time, Iraq had the best Army in the region. We tore through it so fast that some of our forces had to wait for everyone else to catch up.  IF the other arab nations find a need to intervene in our liberation of Iraq so that their pro-terrorist, anti-Semetic, anti-Israeli, anti-West style of dictatorship and oppression is protected, we'll deal with them as need be.

Quote:
Again i am amazed by the stupidity of ppl, and thier ignorance and the way they justify thier actions.  No wonder noone likes americans.


I like Americans!

If you would actually direct your attention to the points that were made rather than insinuating that I'm stupid or ignorant, maybe we could engage in a dialogue and discuss this matter more.

If Iraq signed an agreement that brought a cessation to hostilities, then violated the agreement, doesn't that mean that their should be an immediate resumption of conflict? Thats how it seems to me. That is what a "cease-fire agreement" is all about.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2256967 -

mushmaster said:

If that were truly the case, then why did Powell, Bush and Blair spend so much time trying (unsuccessfully) to get another resolution through the UN authorising force? Why spend all that time and effort and create all of the animosity with Germany, France and Russia if it was as simple as just starting the old war again? If this was such a clear-cut case, why didn't the UN vote go through?

look into the financial ties between these countries and hussein's iraq and it should become clear to you.


Those weren't the only countries to oppose the war though. Neither were they the only countries that Iraq was in debt to. The US is estimated to be owed about $5 billion. If you look into the financial ties between companies like Halliburton and Iraq, does the picture become clearer, or maybe muddier?


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2256991 -

I like Americans!

enough to send 500+ to their deaths..for a few barrels of oil..and to catch a scumbucket named saddam hussein..who was by no means worth it...typical neocon logic...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2257017 -

Annapurna1 said:
I like Americans!

enough to send 500+ to their deaths..for a few barrels of oil..and to catch a scumbucket named saddam hussein..who was by no means worth it...typical neocon logic...


When you join the military, those are the risks you take. I'm not saying that it's acceptable, it's just the way that war works. Where are my barrels of oil at? Are they going to be UPS'ed to me? Do I need to sign for them?

Was WWII worth it to you?

Also, put the labelmaker down, using them only makes you look foolish and your point, weak.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2257045 -

Was WWII worth it to you?
thats a very good ?..given the society we've (d)evolved into...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2257439 -

Annapurna1 said:
Was WWII worth it to you?
thats a very good ?..given the society we've (d)evolved into...


Would you care to expound upon that topic a bit more, I think you are being too vague for me to give an answer.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2258969 -

exactly what cease-fire terms did the iraqis violate?? no banned weapons have been found in iraq.. nor is there any other evidence that such a violation occurred...

Amen.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2259504 -

TheOneYouKnow said:
Annapurna1 said:
Was WWII worth it to you?
thats a very good ?..given the society we've (d)evolved into...


Would you care to expound upon that topic a bit more, I think you are being too vague for me to give an answer.


It means its irrelevent who won ww2 as the same greed, hate, and conflict still exist today, yet in another form. In the end it is all irrelevent....rulers and nations come and go, and when you think about it dying for your coutry isn't as noble as the ppl sending you to fight for them would have you think,.


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2259540 -

TheOneYouKnow said:
If at any time I've stated or alluded to me being the spokesperson for the whole of the American populace, I hereby renounce that and state that I am, in fact, not the spokesman for all of the Americans.


I never said you were the spokesman...i said i hope other americans don't feel as you do, but i fear they share similar views. This concerns me as i see your mentality as us vs. them which is absolutely self defeating. I know they seem more war mongering, but going over there and kicking thier ass the american way, doesn't do anything but agrivate the situation. Its like america is a petty spoiled child nation incapable of more than blind retaliation and dominance.

TheOneYouKnow said:If the other Arabs don't back down, from what I'm not sure, I'm sure we can teach them a lesson as well. When we went into Kuwait, and then Iraq, the first time, Iraq had the best Army in the region. We tore through it so fast that some of our forces had to wait for everyone else to catch up. IF the other arab nations find a need to intervene in our liberation of Iraq so that their pro-terrorist, anti-Semetic, anti-Israeli, anti-West style of dictatorship and oppression is protected, we'll deal with them as need be.


Other nations don't want ww3 and won't support you stay bribes, threats, and manipulation. YOU are in the middle east, yet say you will indiscriminately wage war on all arab nations who, in thier eyes, are protecting the west from establishing themselves in their area. How would you feel if an arab nation conquered mexico for instance?. Go ahead with your crusade, but with your economy, and the current unrest with americas aggresivness internationally, i do not think the resulting campaign would be as glorious as you envision my friend.

Quote:
TheOneYouKnow said:
I like Americans!


Are you american?

Quote:
TheOneYouKnow said:If you would actually direct your attention to the points that were made rather than insinuating that I'm stupid or ignorant, maybe we could engage in a dialogue and discuss this matter more.


Done, i have all day.

Quote:
TheOneYouKnow said:If Iraq signed an agreement that brought a cessation to hostilities, then violated the agreement, doesn't that mean that their should be an immediate resumption of conflict?


Why would you think that?! is hostility the only way to deal with things that don't work out? What about the logic that shows how most of the chemical agent to have expired by now...the confimed destroyed weapons. It doesn't take a president to see they are no threat to a country like america...hell not even thier arab neigboors.

Yes hostility could be imediately resumed, but that would be the most petty, greedy, self serving way to interpret it,,,,and make a fine profit at the same time. No wonder no-one likes americans. I hope you do take on the whole middle east and see why force is not an answer, or by any means a solution.


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2259649 -

If the other Arabs don't back down, from what I'm not sure, I'm sure we can teach them a lesson as well.

I think the insurgency in Iraq is enough to be going on with.

And if you want to make a name for yourselves as studs I'd avoid invading places like Afghanistan and Iraq. That's not gonna impress anyone.

Iraq had the best Army in the region

Like Bill Hicks said - the Hare Krishna's had the most powerful army after Iraq.

If Iraq signed an agreement that brought a cessation to hostilities, then violated the agreement, doesn't that mean that their should be an immediate resumption of conflict? Thats how it seems to me. That is what a "cease-fire agreement" is all about.

May be to you but that's nothing like what it means under law. All a ceasefire is offering to "ACCEPT" terms. That doesn't even mean you have to put them into practise - you are simply accepting them. Certainly the UN resolution that defined the terms of the ceasefire had nothing to do with invading Iraq.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2260322 -

I had hoped you would respond earlier today, as i messaged you my responce sinse you were so put out i didn't elaborate. Your posting elsewhere...maby you forgot? ill check tomorrow, but im still at work for another hour...i'd be interested in hearing your views.


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2260344 -

Alex123 said:
exactly what cease-fire terms did the iraqis violate?? no banned weapons have been found in iraq.. nor is there any other evidence that such a violation occurred...

Amen.


I think that mushmaster clearly answered that question in one of the numerous threads that i've seen you ask for proof in, then mysteriously disappear as soon as the proof arises. Let me make it a bit more clear for you, since you might have missed it.

1) Saddam wanted us to stop kicking his ass after we liberated Kuwait
2) Saddam signed a cease-fire agreement that we proposed. In it the terms were set that he not hinder weapons inspection at all, or the cease fire would be null and void.
3) Saddam violated that cease-fire agreement. The instant that any Iraqi military offical prevented the UN inspection team from inspecting any site, they were in violation of the cease-fire agreement and, as such, the hostilities should haveb een resumed immediately.

Now, either directly counter any fo those three points, easily numbered for your debating convienece, or have one more person on this board agreeing with the general concensus about you. Good day.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Azmodeus]
    #2260354 -

Azmodeus said:
It means its irrelevent who won ww2 as the same greed, hate, and conflict still exist today, yet in another form. In the end it is all irrelevent....rulers and nations come and go, and when you think about it dying for your coutry isn't as noble as the ppl sending you to fight for them would have you think,.


Thanks for answering me, sorry if I didn't get to this in time for you to catch it today.

The world changed alot with the Allied victory over Germany. Hitler died ro disappeared and the NSDAP and Nazism offically died(The modern day "nazis", truely aren't of the Nazi party and thus, in my mind, not Nazis, just bigots/anti-semites), the Holocaust ended, etceteras.

I don't think that ANY war will ever eliminate all evil, but we take them as we come. War might not end the ideals of evil, but they can sure as hell take out the death camps that are the tools of them.

I have to run now, sorry< i'll make a longer post later tonight.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2260441 -

Quote:
TheOneYouKnow said:
I don't think that ANY war will ever eliminate all evil, but we take them as we come. War might not end the ideals of evil, but they can sure as hell take out the death camps that are the tools of them.



Can you admit the opportunity for corruption in americas government? in the new homeland security legislation? how do you 'trust' them not to abuse this power as most every person with power has done since the dawn of our existance?

If you can admit the possiblity, then you can see how liberating a country like iraq seems more like a hidden agenda and less like an genuine concern about terrorists and americas safety.

The whole agument of broken ceasefire= resumption of hostility reminds me of a child hitting a man, and the man then beats this child to a bloody pulp in the name of self defense. They didn't even resume force, but i guess thats not enough for manly america. Heaven forbid they be the better nation and lead by example....find an alternate solution to force?

Another instance if albiet irrelevent is the beef scares. America immediately closed thier boarders to our beef, yet when reversed, canadian officals decided to wait for test results knowing border closures would drastically effect local markets down south.


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Edited by Azmodeus (01/21/04 04:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2261834 -

I think that mushmaster clearly answered that question in one of the numerous threads that i've seen you ask for proof in,

No, it's in the first page on this thread and as you can see I'm still here. Surely you do not disagree with Annapurna that no WMD have been found?

then mysteriously disappear as soon as the proof arises

Do you have an example of one of these threads? I'd like to read one. Or were you just making this story up? 

Saddam wanted us to stop kicking his ass after we liberated Kuwait

No, there was no intention by the Americans to invade Iraq. A weak Saddam was considered a better prospect than a strong fundamentalist ruler.

Saddam signed a cease-fire agreement that we proposed

No he didn't. Try and find this "ceasefire" for me.  What you'll find is a UN resolution. It's called UN resolution 687. All it calls on Iraq to do is "unconditionally accept" terms. That's how these things work - all a country is called on to do when they sign the ceasefire is to "accept" the terms. Think about that - it's important. 

In it the terms were set that he not hinder weapons inspection at all, or the cease fire would be null and void.

Horseshit. Find me where UN 687 says "If you hinder weapons inspections anytime ever we have the right to invade Iraq". You'll be looking an awful long time - why do you think Bush tried so desperately to get more resolutions? 

Saddam violated that cease-fire agreement

Again, can you find this "ceasefire" agreement you keep talking about? As I've explained to you you'll find a UN resolution. And absolutely nothing whatsoever in it saying "If you don't obey this we have the right to go to war".

The instant that any Iraqi military offical prevented the UN inspection team from inspecting any site, they were in violation of the cease-fire agreement and, as such, the hostilities should haveb een resumed immediately.

Horseshit. Everything you have stated is completly and utterly wrong. There was UN resolution 687. And there was nothing in this saying that hostilities be resumed if Iraq was in "violation" of an "ceasefire agreement".

Now, either directly counter any fo those three points

See above.

or have one more person on this board agreeing with the general concensus about you

My, you neocons do take things awfully personally don't you  :lol:

Why not try and address the issues instead of getting personal?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2261986 -

Can we turn the clock back a bit and determine why we got our selves invoved with the Kuwait deal? A country the size of a large pea gets our attention from across the world, enough so that we ship a few troops over to intervene.

I am sure there are countries around the world that have been in a similar situation but are ignored because they are not an important playing piece in our grand game.

I also heard this rumour that Sadam was put into power by our government way back when.

This is all too much for me. How can one ever understand all of this, when one motive leads to another and is reflected off of some gold, be it black or yellow, and then split and rejoined and on and on. What we have now is far from a simple combination of 5-10 elements.

I want to learn more.

Joshua


--------------------
The Shroomery Bookstore

Great books for inquiring minds!

"Life After Death is Saprophytic!"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2262605 -

TheOneYouKnow said:
I have to run now, sorry< i'll make a longer post later tonight.


Im here all day again...msg me if you rebute my arguments.


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Azmodeus]
    #2263516 -

Azmodeus said:
This concerns me as i see your mentality as us vs. them which is absolutely self defeating.



When "they" crash planes into "our" buildings, the line gets much clearer. When "they" support the groups that kill "our" people, the line gets much clearer.
Quote:
I know they seem more war mongering, but going over there and kicking thier ass the american way, doesn't do anything but agrivate the situation.



Observe the transformation in the state of libya. Their leader supported terrorist attacks that took down a British Air flight over Scotland, then their leader challenged the USA to come and attack him. We did go and attack him, and ever since then he has been much more moderate and, since 9/11, much more supportive of anti-terrorism legislation.

I also believe that the majority of the Arabs living in the Middle East are under a brutal tyrannical dictatorships that utilizes their total domination of the media to blame other sources for the misery that most Middle Eastern Arabs live in, while the ruling elite live in palaces. If we remove these leaders, much like we did in Iraq, and make it so that their way of life is somewhat comparable to our way of life, the people will be happier and less prone to want to kill "us".
Quote:
Its like america is a petty spoiled child nation incapable of more than blind retaliation and dominance.



It's more like America is the rich kid on the playground that everyone acts nice to his face so they can earn favors, then everyone talks bad about him behind his back.
Quote:
Other nations don't want ww3 and won't support you stay bribes, threats, and manipulation. YOU are in the middle east, yet say you will indiscriminately wage war on all arab nations who, in thier eyes, are protecting the west from establishing themselves in their area.



If these people are brainwashed by the total state-run media over in the Middle East, I feel very bad for them. However, I don't think that we should allow that process to continue, especially when it endangers Americans. You could say that same thing about Nazi Germany, that they just want to ensure that no Jews would build nations near theirs or take over their nation, but it doesn't give an effective prohibition from attacking them as we did.
Quote:
How would you feel if an arab nation conquered mexico for instance?. Go ahead with your crusade, but with your economy, and the current unrest with americas aggresivness internationally, i do not think the resulting campaign would be as glorious as you envision my friend.



If I lived in any nation that was about to be, or had recently been, taken by force from the previous government, I would analyze how each side lived. Living in America I am somewhat used to freedoms, having a computer and other entertainment devices, the ability to own an automobile (And allow my girlfriend to drive it), the ability to obtain alternative news sources, to go to libraries and read books about subjects that the government does not like, to practise (or not practise) any form of religion I choose and not be punished for it, the right to free elections, I would probably not be too pleased if a nation who's basic ideals were antithetical to that taking over. However, if I was starving and living in a dictatorship, and people from America wanted to make my nation more like theirs, well, Ican't say that I'd be too terribly upset.
Quote:
Why would you think that?! is hostility the only way to deal with things that don't work out? What about the logic that shows how most of the chemical agent to have expired by now...the confimed destroyed weapons. It doesn't take a president to see they are no threat to a country like america...hell not even thier arab neigboors.



If you violate a cease-fire agreement, you are back at war. Thats pretty logical. "If you do , we will not destroy yourinfrastructure and remove you from power". Obviously, if the subject did "x", the results are clearly spelled out.
Quote:
Yes hostility could be imediately resumed, but that would be the most petty, greedy, self serving way to interpret it,,,,and make a fine profit at the same time. No wonder no-one likes americans. I hope you do take on the whole middle east and see why force is not an answer, or by any means a solution.


Should we interpret it in a way that the loser is contining to do the things we don't want them to, and that is a positive step? We told Saddam that we would rather just send in inspectors and be sure that he does not have said weapons than go into Iraq with military force and remove him from power. He agreed to that. If he breaks that agreement, the entire agreement is nullified. If Japanese forces had continued to wage war on the US, we wouldn't have just let them continue to do it and thought of some brand new solution, we'd use the one that worked out so well against them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2265682 -

TheOneYouKnow said:
Azmodeus said:
This concerns me as i see your mentality as us vs. them which is absolutely self defeating.



When "they" crash planes into "our" buildings, the line gets much clearer. When "they" support the groups that kill "our" people, the line gets much clearer.


Two wrongs don't make a right,,,you justified thier actions by your retaliation...why can't you grasp the concept that force cannot defeat force. Even if you conquered the entire middle east there would always be another force like china. It is a circle and is self defeating....we are all the same ppl.

TheOneYouKnow said:
Azmodeus said:
I know they seem more war mongering, but going over there and kicking thier ass the american way, doesn't do anything but agrivate the situation.



Observe the transformation in the state of libya. Their leader supported terrorist attacks that took down a British Air flight over Scotland, then their leader challenged the USA to come and attack him. We did go and attack him, and ever since then he has been much more moderate and, since 9/11, much more supportive of anti-terrorism legislation.


Oh please...on the surface yes, because they don't want to end up like iraq, but do you think that he was humbled....realised the errors of his ways, and not helps his ppl...the ones he used to support? He's playing both sides, and even if they did genuinely repent, another force is waiting...

Quote:
TheOneYouKnow said:I also believe that the majority of the Arabs living in the Middle East are under a brutal tyrannical dictatorships that utilizes their total domination of the media to blame other sources for the misery that most Middle Eastern Arabs live in, while the ruling elite live in palaces. If we remove these leaders, much like we did in Iraq, and make it so that their way of life is somewhat comparable to our way of life, the people will be happier and less prone to want to kill "us".


That statement is full of assumptions

What makes you think they want to live like you?!, you seem to think your way of life is better, and that they have no choice in how they live. The problem is you are right about them blaming theier problems on others....thier leaders exploit them, and tell them lies to make them think westerners are evil, and bent on conquering the muslim nation....not unlike a similar tactic employed by your administration.


Reading the rest of your post, i see nothing i say is going to change your attitude, and while i understand your arguments, i do not agree with them. Thank you for taking the time to elaborat on your perspectives.


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2266739 -

Alex123 said:
May be to you but that's nothing like what it means under law. All a ceasefire is offering to "ACCEPT" terms. That doesn't even mean you have to put them into practise - you are simply accepting them. Certainly the UN resolution that defined the terms of the ceasefire had nothing to do with invading Iraq.


Actually, it's exactly how it is under the law. I don't think that many people here really like you, and the ones I've spoken to in private say that it's because you constantly ignore points that are very relavent to discussion and de-rail threads with your own (unsubstantiated) beliefs.

So, to encourage you to prove them wrong, I'd like you to read the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998". You'll recall that neither Bush nor Cheney were in office (at the federal level) then, so nothing in there is due to the obvious grasp for the trillions of tons of oil thats we've seized (and just where IS all of this oil?)

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm
-----
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
-----


Also, another interesting article describing the legal implications of a cease-fire agreement
http://www.southend.wayne.edu/days/2003/February/2272003/oped/cease/cease.html
-----
A peace agreement is the formal end of a war between two or more warring countries. A cease-fire is nothing more than a cessation of military action based upon certain conditions, in order to possibly reach a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. During a cease-fire, hostilities still exist between the signing nations and peace is neither achieved nor guaranteed. If either side violates the cease-fire, the opposing nation may resume military attacks at any time.

Since 1991, a cessation of hostilities has existed between the United States and Iraq, according to the cease-fire agreed to by the Iraqi and United States governments and presented to Congress by former President Bush on May 17, 1991.

-----

And just to cover all of my bases, the actual cease-fire agreement is locoated at ...
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1991/91051704.html
-----
Resolution 687 required, as a precondition for a formal cease-fire, that Iraq officially notify the United Nations of its acceptance of the provisions of the resolution. These provisions included: (1) respect for the international boundary as agreed between Iraq and Kuwait in 1963, which the Security Council guaranteed; (2) the creation of a demilitarized zone along the Iraq-Kuwait border and the deployment of a U.N. observer unit into that zone; (3) the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and nuclear-weapons-usable material, together with facilities related to them, and international supervision and inspection to verify compliance; (4) the creation of a fund, drawn from future Iraqi oil revenues, to pay compensation for losses caused by the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait; (5) the continuation of the embargo of all exports of arms to Iraq; (6) the phased relaxation of certain other aspects of the U.N. sanctions against Iraq as Iraq complies with its obligations under the resolution; and (7) the renunciation by Iraq of support for international terrorism.

Iraq officially accepted those terms on April 6, and a formal cease-fire has gone into effect. Accordingly, United States Armed Forces deployed in southern Iraq began withdrawing as U.N. peacekeeping personnel deployed into the zone, and this withdrawal was completed on May 9. The United States has been assisting the U.N. Secretary General in his efforts to implement the other provisions of Resolution 687, particularly with respect to boundary demarcation, compensation, and weapons of mass destruction.
---

In your post you claimed that 'accepting' them doesn't mean that you will put the terms into practise. This is actually a crock of bullshit, but lets go with it for the purposes of drawing your argument from the cloak of ignorance into the bright light of knowledge. If one party is allowed to accept the terms of a cease-fire, but not abide by them, and that seems acceptable to you, then lets just say that Bush II decided to accept the terms, but not abide by them, and thus, we took over Iraq. Hey, if they can accept, but not abide, then we can too, and, since you are a reasonable objective person who is open to new things and certaintly not the type that would contradict yourself, you'll have to agree right? We'll see :-)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2266743 -

Alex123 said:
Saddam signed a cease-fire agreement that we proposed

No he didn't. Try and find this "ceasefire" for me.  What you'll find is a UN resolution. It's called UN resolution 687. All it calls on Iraq to do is "unconditionally accept" terms. That's how these things work - all a country is called on to do when they sign the ceasefire is to "accept" the terms. Think about that - it's important. 



Read my previous post :smile: It's all there, including how Iraq ACCEPTED the terms, offically. :-)  I wish we could make a special smiley face that "luvdemshrooms", "mushmaster' and I could use when we catch you in a lie, or being totally factually incorrect :-)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2266762 -

No he didn't. Try and find this "ceasefire" for me. What you'll find is a UN resolution. It's called UN resolution 687. All it calls on Iraq to do is "unconditionally accept" terms. That's how these things work - all a country is called on to do when they sign the ceasefire is to "accept" the terms. Think about that - it's important.

you've said that before, and i've always been confused by it. the terms of the 687 (the ceasefire) included prohibitions of WMD's and provisions for inspections. iraq may have "agreed" to it with their words, but not their actions. agreement means more than just a signature on a peice of paper. am i missing something?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Azmodeus]
    #2266769 -

Azmodeus said:
Can you admit the opportunity for corruption in americas government? in the new homeland security legislation? how do you 'trust' them not to abuse this power as most every person with power has done since the dawn of our existance?



I don't think that their is as much chance for corruption in American gov't as their is in other govt's around the world. The PATRIOT act only applies to non-resident aliens. Most every person with power has abused it? I don't think so. People like Saddam, Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, Atilla the Hun, they abuse power.
Quote:
If you can admit the possiblity, then you can see how liberating a country like iraq seems more like a hidden agenda and less like an genuine concern about terrorists and americas safety.



I don't follow that logic at all. Because our government could be passing legislation that is designed to intentionally impinge upon the rights of America, attacking Iraq is a hidden agenda? Where do you draw the connection, because "they" have supposedly lied about the PATRIOT act and other such things, they'd lie about this? I don't think that is a very logically sound conclusion. If someone were in charge and their sole goal was to restrict American rights, they would focus only on that, not funnel billions of dollars into another war that is actually, most likely, going to be beneficial to America.
Quote:
The whole agument of broken ceasefire= resumption of hostility reminds me of a child hitting a man, and the man then beats this child to a bloody pulp in the name of self defense. They didn't even resume force, but i guess thats not enough for manly america. Heaven forbid they be the better nation and lead by example....find an alternate solution to force?



No, they didn't RESUME force, they broke the agreement that STOPPED the use of force. Lets use your example, shall we? Lets say that my child hits me because he is mad, I then grab him by the shirt and say "Do not do that again, or i'm going to spank you!", he says "OK, I wont' do that again, because I understand that if I do, you will spank me". Then, he hits me again. He has been warned of the consequences, I'm not depriving him of any quality that would better his life (that is to say, forbidding him from hitting me isn't like forbidding him from eating, or breathing), and most of all, he AGREED to it. This actually isn't even the best analogy I could come up with, so let me create another one.

Lets say that said child is going around the neighorhood with a baseball bat hitting minority children. The police catch him, arrest him, and he is sent to trial. The judge is lenient on the child and says "If you promise NOT to go out and continue your assault on minorities, we'll defer prosecution for one year. If, in that year, you haven't assaulted any more minorities, we'll drop charges". The person agrees and the next day, beats a man with a bat. Should
charges be resumed?
Quote:
Another instance if albiet irrelevent is the beef scares. America immediately closed thier boarders to our beef, yet when reversed, canadian officals decided to wait for test results knowing border closures would drastically effect local markets down south.


Well that settles it! Bush is a tyrant and is using the PATRIOT act to further his vision of 1984 in America!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2266774 -

he PATRIOT act only applies to non-resident aliens.

you sure about that?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2266780 -

mushmaster said:
he PATRIOT act only applies to non-resident aliens.

you sure about that?


I had thought that it did. I admit that I could be incorrect about it. If I am incorrect, I apologize.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2266785 -

I admit that I could be incorrect about it.

i'm afraid you are.  :sad:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2266793 -

"I don't think that their is as much chance for corruption in American gov't as their is in other govt's around the world. The PATRIOT act only applies to non-resident aliens. Most every person with power has abused it? I don't think so. People like Saddam, Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, Atilla the Hun, they abuse power."

too bad. arbitrary opinion has no place in politics. You can't prove "that their is as much chance for corruption in American gov't as their is in other govt's around the world." Why wouldn't the most powerful, and least experienced country ( marvelous that they have both counts there ), be more prone to corruption? like bees to honey, or bacteria to most nutrients, corruption swarms to where the most money is.



"I don't follow that logic at all. Because our government could be passing legislation that is designed to intentionally impinge upon the rights of America, attacking Iraq is a hidden agenda? Where do you draw the connection, because "they" have supposedly lied about the PATRIOT act and other such things, they'd lie about this? I don't think that is a very logically sound conclusion. If someone were in charge and their sole goal was to restrict American rights, they would focus only on that, not funnel billions of dollars into another war that is actually, most likely, going to be beneficial to America."

Who said they're just trying to restrict America's rights? The PATRIOT act has nothing to do with what he's saying- He's talking about corporate greed here. We take Iraq- we control the oil ( you keep repeating WHAT OIL?? MY GAS STILL COSTS THE SAME!!! It's not a matter of actually giving >us< any oil, that would be costly- rather, it's about controlling one of the world's most important sources of oil, which is one of the most important resources right now. Oil = mucho money $$$, not for you- for the government


"Lets say that said child is going around the neighorhood with a baseball bat hitting minority children. The police catch him, arrest him, and he is sent to trial. The judge is lenient on the child and says "If you promise NOT to go out and continue your assault on minorities, we'll defer prosecution for one year. If, in that year, you haven't assaulted any more minorities, we'll drop charges". The person agrees and the next day, beats a man with a bat. Should
charges be resumed?"

rofl this one made me laugh. hitting minority children.. ah... ( that distinction is most amusing ) Oh well. New charges for a new crime, wouldn't you say? The court order specifically mentions minorities.. what a silly court order mind you. Actually this analagy doesn't make sense. You dropped his because it was inconvenient, and created a similar, but useless one

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2266812 -

Morrowind said:
too bad. arbitrary opinion has no place in politics. You can't prove "that their is as much chance for corruption in American gov't as their is in other govt's around the world."



I'd actually say that American politics has LESS chance for corruption, since it's mandated that no one person can be in charge for more than 8 years.
Quote:
Why wouldn't the most powerful, and least experienced country ( marvelous that they have both counts there ), be more prone to corruption? like bees to honey, or bacteria to most nutrients, corruption swarms to where the most money is.



Odd, then, how more third world nations have corruption than American politics. Prove this vast conspiracy, oh, oh, i've even got a name! The "vast right wing conspiracy" that goes around spilling presidential semen on poor innocent girls dressed to implicate them! right? that one?
Quote:
Who said they're just trying to restrict America's rights? The PATRIOT act has nothing to do with what he's saying- He's talking about corporate greed here.



Nothing in "his" post mentions corporate greed. It discusses first the opportunity for corruption related to the new homeland security laws, then it discusses the invasion of Iraq. Where did he mention large corporate greed?
Quote:
We take Iraq- we control the oil ( you keep repeating WHAT OIL?? MY
GAS STILL COSTS THE SAME!!! It's not a matter of actually giving >us< any oil, that would be costly- rather, it's about controlling one of the world's most important sources of oil, which is one of the most important resources right now. Oil = mucho money $$$, not for you- for the government



Oh, I see, so thats why our economy is doing so much better. Since I like numbers so much, could you demonstrate how this oil is making our government richer? I'd like to see that somewhere. Is our national debt smaller? Oh, since it's "the government" that is getting richer, you'll need to start showing all of the oil money with a negative number, since we spend so many billions to get it. HAve we earned that back? are we in the process of it? if so, show me how. Where is this magical oil/money/gas coming from, and where is it going to?
Quote:
rofl this one made me laugh. hitting minority children.. ah... ( that distinction is most amusing ) Oh well. New charges for a new crime, wouldn't you say?



I would indeed say that, and I'd also say that he would be punished for the first case.
Quote:
The court order specifically mentions minorities.. what a silly court order mind you. Actually this analagy doesn't make sense. You dropped his because it was inconvenient, and created a similar, but useless one


If you use a process that is called "Reading", you'll see that I used his analogy first, then made ANOTHER one. So I didn't drop his, I used his and you totally ignored it. *looks up*, yup, I don't see you replying to that at all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2266829 -

point 1- the government system in America was a good one- was. Those checks and balances become negligible with the introduction of major parties with a fundamentally similar goal of keeping the peace within America while making a good living for themselves.



"Odd, then, how more third world nations have corruption than American politics. Prove this vast conspiracy, oh, oh, i've even got a name! The "vast right wing conspiracy" that goes around spilling presidential semen on poor innocent girls dressed to implicate them! right? that one?"

I never called it a conspiracy, and you actually have a valid point there. Yes, third world nations tend to have corruption- that's largely because of any aid they're given and the expectations put on them to get. My point is not in showing other countries have corruption, the topic is America. America has shitloads of corruption, can you agree to that? Oh, and please stfu, never call me a democrat, fuck you



"Nothing in "his" post mentions corporate greed. It discusses first the opportunity for corruption related to the new homeland security laws, then it discusses the invasion of Iraq. Where did he mention large corporate greed?"

Before that he stated the number one reason for invading Iraq was for its oil. I mention corporate greed, because our government is corrupt because of it. I am not him. Whoopssie, i take it back if thats not what he meant- now stop arguing what he said and argue what I'm saying

"

Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Morrowind]
#2266812 - 01/23/04 09:27 PM
Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply

Quote:
Morrowind said:
too bad. arbitrary opinion has no place in politics. You can't prove "that their is as much chance for corruption in American gov't as their is in other govt's around the world."



I'd actually say that American politics has LESS chance for corruption, since it's mandated that no one person can be in charge for more than 8 years.

Quote:

Why wouldn't the most powerful, and least experienced country ( marvelous that they have both counts there ), be more prone to corruption? like bees to honey, or bacteria to most nutrients, corruption swarms to where the most money is.



Odd, then, how more third world nations have corruption than American politics. Prove this vast conspiracy, oh, oh, i've even got a name! The "vast right wing conspiracy" that goes around spilling presidential semen on poor innocent girls dressed to implicate them! right? that one?

Quote:

Who said they're just trying to restrict America's rights? The PATRIOT act has nothing to do with what he's saying- He's talking about corporate greed here.



Nothing in "his" post mentions corporate greed. It discusses first the opportunity for corruption related to the new homeland security laws, then it discusses the invasion of Iraq. Where did he mention large corporate greed?




"Oh, I see, so thats why our economy is doing so much better. Since I like numbers so much, could you demonstrate how this oil is making our government richer? I'd like to see that somewhere. Is our national debt smaller? Oh, since it's "the government" that is getting richer, you'll need to start showing all of the oil money with a negative number, since we spend so many billions to get it. HAve we earned that back? are we in the process of it? if so, show me how. Where is this magical oil/money/gas coming from, and where is it going to?"


has nothing to do with economy as of yet, has everything to do with controlling the flow of oil. I see I have to do this point by point- do you agree that we control the flow of oil out of Iraq? Rather, not the government, the oil corporations that back it. hell, they're both led by the same people


yea i noticed this:
"No, they didn't RESUME force, they broke the agreement that STOPPED the use of force. Lets use your example, shall we? Lets say that my child hits me because he is mad, I then grab him by the shirt and say "Do not do that again, or i'm going to spank you!", he says "OK, I wont' do that again, because I understand that if I do, you will spank me". Then, he hits me again. He has been warned of the consequences, I'm not depriving him of any quality that would better his life (that is to say, forbidding him from hitting me isn't like forbidding him from eating, or breathing), and most of all, he AGREED to it. This actually isn't even the best analogy I could come up with, so let me create another one."

you abandoned it because it makes no fucking sense. Ok, so you now proceed to beat the child into a bloody pulp and justify it with warning. no shit that's not the best analogy, you actually call that critical thinking?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2266835 -

note to self: never copy and paste when using quick reply

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2267329 -

I don't think that many people here really like you

Pretty rich coming from a guy who'se been banned god knows how many times. Lysergic, Johnnyrespect, enimaprty etc. The name may change, the bullshit stays the same.

Check out my ratings. Apart from a few neocons who take things very personally I seem pretty well liked. Seems to be a habit of yours - making up a fantasy, then convincing yourself it's true.

Incidentally why get all childish and personal about this? Is this some personality trait of neocons? Apart from Randall every neocon I come across on this board always gets his panties in a twist. What is it in your characters that means you can't argue a point like grown ups?

and the ones I've spoken to in private

Try speaking to a VARIETY of people. Not just ones who agree with you. That's how you learn.

If either side violates the cease-fire, the opposing nation may resume military attacks at any time.

:lol:

Fucking hell is this the best evidence you've got? A letter sent by a student to a University paper? That's "proof" to you is it? READ MORE ON THE SUBJECT. Don't just jump to conclusions and then desperately look round for bizarre letters from unknown students to back your position. He only knows the same as you man - he's making it up not stating fact.

Read what article 42 of the UN charter says about enforcing UN resolutions - you'll learn who is responsible for doing so and what it takes to "restart" a war.

Iraq officially accepted those terms  

Yes I know, I told you that half a dozen posts ago. What is your point? I bet you'd never heard of UN resolution 687 before I told you about it had you? You thought there was a "ceasefire" agreement laying around that said "If they don't obey every term forever and ever we get to invade them straightaway" didn't you? A lot of neocons seem to get confused by this.

And just to cover all of my bases,

Cover them all? You havn't covered one.

Find me where 687 states war can be unilaterally resumed by Bush if the "terms" of the ceasefire are alleged to have been broken. Shouldn't be too hard seeing as you've "covered all your bases"  :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2267365 -

you've said that before, and i've always been confused by it. the terms of the 687 (the ceasefire) included prohibitions of WMD's and provisions for inspections.

It's an important legal point mush. "Accepting terms" of UN resolution isn't the same thing as "If in 12 years time Bush thinks you havn't complied the US can unilaterally restart the war". It's not even close.

It may be a laymans understanding to think "If they signed a UN resolution that means we have the right to unilaterally restart the war at anytime" but nothing could be furthur from the truth. Again - this is one of those subjects that it's useful to know a little about the law on.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2267920 -

if the resolution was a cease-fire (it was, right?), and it had terms in it that hussein agreed to, but didn't abide by, it would seem to me that the cease-fire becomes null and void and hostilities resume. that's what a cease-fire is, no?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2267960 -

Nope.

It's a bit more complicated than that mush. Especially when your "ceasefire" consists of a UN resolution.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2267961 -

nope about which part?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2267967 -

All of it. That simply isn't how ceasefires work. Certainly none that involve UN resolutions

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2267973 -

see... i thought it was. a cease-fire is an agreement to suspend active hostilities. if there are conditions attached, and one party to the cease-fire violates them, the other may resume hostilities. that is what a cease-fire is, right? what is a cease-fire if not that?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2267985 -

Check up on Article 42 of the UN charter.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2267995 -

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


i see. basically, it was a UN cease-fire, and it was up to the UN to decide whether or not to use force in an event of a breach of the terms, not the US?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2268006 -

Well it's partly that, and partly that 687 states that the ceasefire comes into effect if Iraq "accepts the terms" not if Iraq "fullfills the terms". There's a big difference.

I read the Professor of Law at Oxford University explaining this a while ago, I found it surprising too.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2268020 -

the ceasefire comes into effect if Iraq "accepts the terms" not if Iraq "fullfills the terms". There's a big difference.

that part does sound a little far out to me. i'd like to hear that explained.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2268236 -

Annapurna1 said:
exactly what cease-fire terms did the iraqis violate?? no banned weapons have been found in iraq.. nor is there any other evidence that such a violation occurred...paul o'neill has confirmed that the war was all about oil...one could argue that there are no such things as "rights" as far as oil in the middle east is concerned.. but thats beside the point...get the facts straight first.. and pls spare us all the self-righteous neocon braggadocio (nytimes)...


How about shooting at British and American planes in the no-fly zones. If that isn't a direct violation and a flagrant defiance of the UN I don't know what is. Not to mention that they couldn't have made a clearer invitation to a fight. Paul O'Neil has confirmed. whatever. And lets talk about oil. Everything was great before Henry Ford and the automobile wasn't it. no-one in the middle east was upset when America made it possible for everyone to own a car. Hell they were sitting on top of a fortune. The very thing they hate about us created a market that made them wealthier beyond their wildest dreams. At least the rulers who decided not to allow that prosperity to flow out to the peoples of their countries got rich. Anyway as America continued to innovate and create a bigger oil market they sat and enjoyed the benefits while thinking of all the power they would have as the world continued to increase it's reliance on oil. Our freedom to innovate made them rich and powerful on the world stage and they didn't cry about it then did they. Do you think they would be willing to give all that money up if they could be free of the politics that comes with the oil? Just outright sell the rights to all the oil to someone and be done with it? I doubt it. On one edge of the sword they have enjoyed the benefits that have come from Americas innovations and have greedily wrong their hands in anticipation as we grow more needful of oil. On the other edge is the fact that America is not going to take a nose dive because the oil rich countries want to yank the big dogs chain. In the end they though that the power was with those that sit on the resources, but the truth is that the power resides with those who have they means and will to provide for the needs of its people. As things are now we need oil or we will all be living in grass huts scavenging for a meal. The truth is that they failed to see what the future held and instead of investing in the education and progress of their people they chose to line their own pockets and repress their people. The leaders of those countries are and have failed in their duties as leaders of their people and it is not our fault. they squandered and incredible opportunity and it is blood upon their hands.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2274999 -

TheOneYouKnow said:
I don't think that their is as much chance for corruption in American gov't as their is in other govt's around the world. 


Im curious as to why you would think that.  There is the greatest chance of corruption in a country like america because it has the most power....have you never taken history?!

At least you admit the possiblility :smirk:

Quote:
TheOneYouKnow said: funnel billions of dollars into another war that is actually, most likely, going to be beneficial to America.


and you even list a cause! your getting better.  Now can you not relate the issue in iraq as a distraction to limit rights at home?  You can't see how such a limited society could be exploited to support more war? how it already is?!  im sorry, but it seems logical to me, if only using history as an example.  How will it be different this time? let me guess, 'because america has the morality to use wmd.' :shake:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2276032 -

America is not going to take a nose dive because the oil rich countries want to yank the big dogs chain. In the end they though that the power was with those that sit on the resources, but the truth is that the power resides with those who have they means and will to provide for the needs of its people.

i actually posted a thread on this topic a while back...and i agree that we cannot let our own ppl die..and let the rich oil sheikhs have it their way..merely to avoid a war...but if that is the case..then the neocons should at least tell us the truth..and not make up lame excuses...but personally..i still believe that even if it is so..there are other solutions to our energy problems besides aggressive warfare...

in this case..however..the neocons are not forcibly stealing iraq's oil to "provide for the needs of their people"..but rather they intend to steal the role of the oil sheikhs as well:

instead of investing in the education and progress of their people they chose to line their own pockets and repress their people

exactly what the neocons are doing here...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2284656 -

I agree that they should tell the truth but I don't think oil was the ONLY reason. And I think that other energy technologies are on the edge of bearing fuit, but in the mean time...

At least our neocons are smart enough to reinvest in order to make a sustainable system. Those others thought they could exist forever in their sand bunkers while getting rich off the worlds oil need while neglecting their peoples needs. Dumbasses. I'll chalk it up to Darwin.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2285312 -

you will sound like less of a hippocryte(sp)..if you dont criticise the oil sheikhs for having the exact same goal as the US neoconpoops..that being to enrich themselves while keeping their populations repressed and neglected..while at the same time patting the latter on the back for doing a better job at it...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2288008 -

Your comparing the US with Arab countries in the department of repression of it's people? You seem to think that if the US is not perfect in your eyes that it is no better than (if not worse than) countries that repress women and don't educate their people. You say both sides are equal because they have the same goal and that is true to a certain level. There always has been and will be people that work to control others and the treasure. That is the nature of things since people and animals started living in groups. Their system is closed and if you don't have the right bloodline or lack of morals you will never have a chance. The American "neocons" at least realize that they can increase their treasure by allowing the people to flourish. The American system may not be wide open and it may take a lot of work and ass kissing but anyone with the will can become wealthy. Here I know that if I educate myself and apply myself and don't succumb to the temptation to consume, I can build wealth and enjoy a few years of retirement. I'm not guaranteed that but I have hope. Hope. Hope. I have a lifetime more hope that the average Joe in any Arab country. All neocons being equal I know what side I'm on. If you are waiting and wishing for a time when there is none who aspires to control then you have an eternity of waiting and wishing ahead of you. Civilization, waterways, sewage systems, and communities are not built on chaos and anarchy, where ever there is civilization there will be someone in control.It is easy ,safe, and gutless to play the role of pacifist when you are not in the first few places in the pecking order as so many European nations did. When you are first you find yourself having to make the unpopular decisions. But any other country would jump at the chance to make those unpopular decisions if they had the chance because they pretty much all desire to have that control. America will eventually fall as all empires do, and the world will again see dark ages. So I guess you can rejoice in that. True freedom in a general sense no longer exists on Earth and wont again until civilization crumbles or Humans escape the confines of this planet. I am hoping for the latter because I believe that that is where the future lies. I don't mean for this to sound like a sci-fi movie but It is difficult to articulate my beliefs without relating to my fundamental belief about where the future of humanity lies. It lies forward not back. The US attempts to move forward while dictator regimes seem to try moving back or at least to not move at all.

If we are forced to choose between the lesser of necessary evils we need to first agree on what is lesser evil. If you think that Saddams Iraq is a lesser evil than the US I have to think you need your head examined.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2288806 -

The American "neocons" at least realize that they can increase their treasure by allowing the people to flourish.

Did propping up the savage, nightmarish warlords in Afghanistan let people "flourish"?

Did supporting the nightmarish contra terrorists lets the people "flourish".

Did supporting Suharto in his genocide of East Timor let the East Timorese "flourish"?

(This list could go on for pages btw)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2289837 -

Alex123 said:
Did propping up the savage, nightmarish warlords in Afghanistan let people "flourish"?

Did supporting the nightmarish contra terrorists lets the people "flourish".

Did supporting Suharto in his genocide of East Timor let the East Timorese "flourish"?

(This list could go on for pages btw)


So sorry, thats the way the world works, tho. Maybe we shouldn't have supported the Brits in their assault on Nazi Germany, hm?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2289839 -

No supporting the brits against the nazi's was ok, supporting the contras wasn't, supporting Saddam at the height of his mass killing wasn't. It's not that hard to figure out.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2289847 -

Alex123 said:
No supporting the brits against the nazi's was ok, supporting the contras wasn't, supporting Saddam at the height of his mass killing wasn't. It's not that hard to figure out.


I don't really think that we supported Saddam at the height of his mass killing. Even if we did, you are using the term "we" very loosely. George Washington Bush did NOT participate in that. I did not participate in that. If past administrations made mistakes, then thats just the way it is, we'll correct them now.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2289860 -

Yeah you did - during the 80's when the mass killing was at it's height Reagan and Bush were so close to Saddam it was dubbed "the love affair".

btw if GW Bush and the boys are cute and cuddly and want to make amends for past mistakes why support the Northern Alliance? Or the dictators in Uzbekistan who specialise in boiling people alive?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2298112 -

Alex123 said:
Yeah you did - during the 80's when the mass killing was at it's height Reagan and Bush were so close to Saddam it was dubbed "the love affair".

btw if GW Bush and the boys are cute and cuddly and want to make amends for past mistakes why support the Northern Alliance? Or the dictators in Uzbekistan who specialise in boiling people alive?


Let me guess, oil? did I get it right? oil money?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2300709 -

Alex123 said:
The American "neocons" at least realize that they can increase their treasure by allowing the people to flourish.

Did propping up the savage, nightmarish warlords in Afghanistan let people "flourish"?

Did supporting the nightmarish contra terrorists lets the people "flourish".

Did supporting Suharto in his genocide of East Timor let the East Timorese "flourish"?

(This list could go on for pages btw)


I should have said their people as in American citizens. It is up to the leaders of those other contries to create the environment for it's people.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2301106 -

Sure they try but it sure is difficult with the US funding, arming and training terrorists/manical dictators to try and take over their country.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2305987 -

Alex123 said:
Yeah you did - during the 80's when the mass killing was at it's height Reagan and Bush were so close to Saddam it was dubbed "the love affair".



I'd like you to prove your assertation that "I" supported this.


Also, it seems that you are claming that Iraq is allowed to enter into a cease-fire agreement, accept the terms, but not abide by them? Is this what you are saying?

If so, thanks for giving me yet another reason to show that the war was justified. If they can do it, we can to. So, they entered an agreement (the cease-fire agreement) where they accepted the terms, but did not abide by them. I think that right should apply to both parties, so we can enter the agreement, accept the terms, but not abide by them. Thus, we can continue to attack them. surely you'll support this, since it uses your "logic", right? somehow, I doubt it, but it's still fun to show you how you aren't able to think conceptually (or in the abstract)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2306253 -

I don't pretend to know why some decisions are made and undoubtedly some are made for unrighteous reasons and some are just bad decisions. But international politics is a game of real world chess, and as any chess player knows, sometime you sacrifice a pawn in order to win the game. Average Joe in everyday life must learn to do the same to succeed. Show me someone who gets everything they want and I'll show you someone who wants only what he can have. I'm not condoning any of the things you mentioned. I don't know in what context those decisions were made. I imagine that they were self-serving or just plain wrong decisions but taken of of context they mean little . To make any sound judgment on those I would need a snapshot of the state of affairs at the time. what the relationships between us and the other gov, rebels. Their relationships with other govs, our relationship with those other govs. Pressures exerted by other govs not directly related. A history of the relationships leading up to the event. Goals of the administration at the time. Judgments should be made from the same context as the event being judged. Hindsight is 20/20. It is nothing new for any country with the means, to try and replace a leader they see as threatening with on that is weaker and is seen as being easier to control.

Also, care must be excercised when using the term "terrorist" as anyone who holds a opposing view than the political power does andalso has the means to affect change could be labled a terrorist. I'm sure Franklin and Jefferson would have been considered terrorists by the British.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Support US war on IRAQ
( 1 2 all )		 LordMorham 4,755 29 09/20/02 09:56 AM
by LordMorham
* Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion
( 1 2 3 all )		 Xochitl 6,664 43 06/22/06 05:15 PM
by Phred
* Botulinum found in Iraq probably came from US Edame 600 1 10/17/03 02:16 PM
by Xlea321
* Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 RonoS 1,085 10 09/26/02 11:00 PM
by Phred
* Nader got Bush elected bullshit LearyfanS 1,582 17 09/20/03 11:50 AM
by shakta
* It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq. RonoS 2,542 12 09/27/02 12:03 AM
by downforpot
* To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq:
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 JohnnyRespect 5,126 70 06/30/03 05:17 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Blix: Iraq had no WMD since 1991
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Xlea321 6,913 106 09/23/03 03:43 PM
by infidelGOD

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,340 topic views. 6 members, 0 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.064 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 16 queries.