NationStates Jolt Archive

Today Kofi Annan and GW addressed the UN. It became pretty obvious rather quick that many of Kofi Annan comments about "The rule of law" were pointed right at the USA. I watched it live on the CBC, I wonder if the Americans picked up on this not so subtle message.

The Address In Brief (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/09/21/kofi040921.html)

I also almost fell off my chair when Bush had the nerve to use the Universal Human Rights charter, us Canadians know a little bit about it, it was a Canadian who wrote it. The Americans don't even live by it. It's against the Universal Human Right Charter to have the death penalty, did any one tell Bush that before he tried to invoke it?

It does certainly seem to be very much pointed towards the Americans, but why would Bush stop to listen to this speech when he's ignored all other instances of global condemnation?

It does certainly seem to be very much pointed towards the Americans, but why would Bush stop to listen to this speech when he's ignored all other instances of global condemnation?

Well the CBC pundits said he (Bush) more then likely was playing to the Americans themselves. That it was unlikely that he would move or change any one else's mind in the world.

I think it fair to say that the current US President is probably the most insular in terms of attitude that I can remember - he tries to appeal to his own people rather than anyone else. Now this is of course fair enough, and he is entitled so to do, but it hardly helps the USA's relations with other countries - we just end up getting annoyed by him. His attitudes seems to be, no matter what other countries think, i'll go ahead and do it (he is probably more subtle than that, but that appears to be the gist of it). The thing is, we all need allies at some point, even the USA will, and it won't have many friends left if the current trend in US thinking continues for too long.
At least that is my opinion.

Added to that, there seems to be an attitude of 'if we are doing it for the right reasons then it is okay - but that allows you to justify anything (and probably explains why President Bush is such good friends with Prime Minister Blair).

He just seems so out of touch with what is going on in the rest of the world, including Iraq. Does he really have no idea the war there is being lost? Or is it just he knows and hopes the average American voter won't notice?

I mean people have such short term memories, remember when Bush gave the declaration of war according to the Hague Conventions (war is declared by either a declaration of war or by issuing an ultimatum) Bush most certainly gave Saddam an ultimatum.. thus legally declared war on Iraq.. but remember what that ultimatum was? That Saddam and his two sons had 48 hours to leave Iraq or military action would be taken, the question I have to ask myself is what if Saddam and his sons had left, then what? It's just more proof of how inept this current president has been.

Today Kofi Annan and GW addressed the UN. It became pretty obvious rather quick that many of Kofi Annan comments about "The rule of law" were pointed right at the USA. I watched it live on the CBC, I wonder if the Americans picked up on this not so subtle message.

The Address In Brief (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/09/21/kofi040921.html)

I also almost fell off my chair when Bush had the nerve to use the Universal Human Rights charter, us Canadians know a little bit about it, it was a Canadian who wrote it. The Americans don't even live by it. It's against the Universal Human Right Charter to have the death penalty, did any one tell Bush that before he tried to invoke it?

Wow....so he calls for the UN to take action in Sudan and other areas where human rights are an issue and you guys complain about the freaking death penalty? I always find it funny that in places where they behead people and film it there is no protest, but a murderer is executed as humanely as possible there is plenty of protest. The world certainly is a funny place. How about the UN and Annan getting rich from the "oil for food program?" How is that for the rule of law?

Well I think that he had decided to go to war regardless of a number of factors - even though, to my eyes, President Hussein's Iraq was not much of a threat to anybody.
Now Iraq is a mess, and in The Indpendent it was reported that most of Iraq is so dangerous for US TV and newspaper reporters to go to, so they stay in the safe bits and report from there - thus giving the USA a 'skewed' view of the situation. This might not be true, but it sounds as thought it might be (i do tend to trust The Independent).
This is one of those times when being able to say 'I told you so' is no use at all (and only slightly satisfying).

You didn't watch it I take it.. ;)

I read it....Koffi Annan is an idiot.

Wow....so he calls for the UN to take action in Sudan and other areas where human rights are an issue and you guys complain about the freaking death penalty?

You didn't watch it I take it.. ;)

Well I think that he had decided to go to war regardless of a number of factors - even though, to my eyes, President Hussein's Iraq was not much of a threat to anybody.
Now Iraq is a mess, and in The Indpendent it was reported that most of Iraq is so dangerous for US TV and newspaper reporters to go to, so they stay in the safe bits and report from there - thus giving the USA a 'skewed' view of the situation. This might not be true, but it sounds as thought it might be (i do tend to trust The Independent).
This is one of those times when being able to say 'I told you so' is no use at all (and only slightly satisfying).

Totally agree. The only people it seems left who think this was a good idea are the blind faithful to Bush it would appear. Any one with half a brain has to know this was a complete blunder.

I read it....Koffi Annan is an idiot.

I think the majority of the world would think the idiot is Bush, not Kofi Annan. Myself included.

Alright.. assuming the following:
We, the US, stay in Iraq until the terrorists fighting against coolition forces are removed and the "rule of law" is returned to Iraq. Iraqi police force is equiped and trained to be able to keep the peace. Iraq holds democratic elections under the supervision of UN "observers". US withdraws their troops and opens diplomatic channels to the new government, along with the majority of the international community.

Would then the Iraqi people be better off than under Saddam?

I feel the President gave a great speech...

UN Speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040921-3.html)

Sure I guess his speech fell on deaf ears at the UN and on certain people, but I feel it was one of his best speeches. All of those dictators and anti-jewish members of the UN should wake up and smell the coffee. This is a war against extremist islamic terrorists, it needs to be fought hard by all free nations.

Funny how Koffi likes to lecture the US when he had his hand in the Iraq cookie jar (oil for food) for years, grabbing what money he could. Now that he has been caught he condemns us for our actions?

Totally agree. The only people it seems left who think this was a good idea are the blind faithful to Bush it would appear. Any one with half a brain has to know this was a complete blunder.

A blunder? I think it was about the best option. The US was enforcing so many UN resolutions against Saddam. The UN passes all these resolutions and does nothing. I HOPE the UN passes some resolution against the US some day and see how they enforce it. Which country is going to jump first? The UN proclaims itself as some great organization that is there to help the people of the world. Yet where are they when it comes to things like Rwanda? Or Bosnia when the Dutch troops under UN command actually helped the Serbs in their ethnic cleansing efforts? Yet the US takes a stand and DOES something and the UN is aghast! If it was up to the UN ALL the people of Bosnia and Kosovo would be a memory now. Face it, the UN is just a feel-good meeting hall for those who consider themselves as doing good for the world. :rolleyes:

I think the majority of the world would think the idiot is Bush, not Kofi Annan. Myself included.

Do you know for a fact that he is an idiot? Did you see an IQ test? This is the left's usual arguement on Bush. Just because a person is not the greatest public speaker does not make them an idiot. If I remember correctly Bush did beat Gore in the debates and by all accounts Gore was the "smarter" man in that election.

Kofi might not be an idiot, but he is big scumbag. He is basically a criminal who will finally be gone by 06.

Well I think that he had decided to go to war regardless of a number of factors - even though, to my eyes, President Hussein's Iraq was not much of a threat to anybody.
Now Iraq is a mess, and in The Indpendent it was reported that most of Iraq is so dangerous for US TV and newspaper reporters to go to, so they stay in the safe bits and report from there - thus giving the USA a 'skewed' view of the situation. This might not be true, but it sounds as thought it might be (i do tend to trust The Independent).
This is one of those times when being able to say 'I told you so' is no use at all (and only slightly satisfying).
Wasn't the intention of going to war in Iraq a part of the Project for a New American Century's before Bush was even elected? It is fairly well known that the Bush family and many of their supporters are linked with/followers of this...And so it almost certainly was the case that Bush had intended on war with Iraq all along...

Wasn't the intention of going to war in Iraq a part of the Project for a New American Century's before Bush was even elected? It is fairly well known that the Bush family and many of their supporters are linked with/followers of this...And so it almost certainly was the case that Bush had intended on war with Iraq all along...

Yes and the illuminati and the freemasons have a hand in it too. lets not forget the skull and bones society which both Bush and Kerry are members of. :rolleyes:

http://www.masonicinfo.com/illuminati.htm

He just seems so out of touch with what is going on in the rest of the world, including Iraq. Does he really have no idea the war there is being lost? Or is it just he knows and hopes the average American voter won't notice?

I mean people have such short term memories, remember when Bush gave the declaration of war according to the Hague Conventions (war is declared by either a declaration of war or by issuing an ultimatum) Bush most certainly gave Saddam an ultimatum.. thus legally declared war on Iraq.. but remember what that ultimatum was? That Saddam and his two sons had 48 hours to leave Iraq or military action would be taken, the question I have to ask myself is what if Saddam and his sons had left, then what? It's just more proof of how inept this current president has been.

Where is your evidence that the war is being lost? Have you been there? This war is going to take time, it will not be won overnight, but it will be won.

[Stephistan #1]
Today Kofi Annan and GW addressed the UN. It became pretty obvious rather quick that many of Kofi Annan comments about "The rule of law" were pointed right at the USA. I watched it live on the CBC, I wonder if the Americans picked up on this not so subtle message.

The Address In Brief (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/09/21/kofi040921.html)

I also almost fell off my chair when Bush had the nerve to use the Universal Human Rights charter, us Canadians know a little bit about it, it was a Canadian who wrote it. The Americans don't even live by it. It's against the Universal Human Right Charter to have the death penalty, did any one tell Bush that before he tried to invoke it?

How many times must it be stated to the world..!?

The US considers the UN a stage for making statements, a handy tool to placate the world into thinking that they have a say in world affairs, and a joke otherwise.

The US will not sublimate itself to a joke.

The UN proves itself for what it really is every day.

The rule of law is debased, not by those who use force to enforce law, but by those who make law that is not enforced.

Iraq will take years to fix. Germany took 30+ years to fix. Why do people think Iraq will take months at most?

One thing that IS a benefit, the terrorists who want to fight the US are flocking to Iraq to do so. They are the ones causing the trouble there. Iraqi's do not have a history of using car bombs, but Iranian and Syrians agents do, and they have moved in to keep iraq from developing into a democracy. We will fight and defeat them in time. In the end iraq will be a much better country and an example for it's neighbors. The dictatorial regimes in the area fear a free Iraq because their own people may want freedom and that will be the end of them. Other countries condemn the US for supporting dictators and despots, then complain when we take one out and try to reform an entire area to make the peoples lives better. People sure are funny about that.....

Yes and the illuminati and the freemasons have a hand in it too. lets not forget the skull and bones society which both Bush and Kerry are members of. :rolleyes:

Hey! I'm a Mason ... I must've missed that conspiracy memo ... :D

Hey! I'm a Mason ... I must've missed that conspiracy memo ... :D

You missed out on Illuminati Night? Oh man, you really should have been there. We were playing "Risk" with REAL countries!! ;)

Hey! I'm a Mason ... I must've missed that conspiracy memo ... :D

It was a good memo...they told us to start overthrowing governments, open up our slave labor camps, and to disinfranchise as many Black voters as possible.

Germany took 30+ years to fix... what exactly was fixed? Other than the survivors of WW2 rebuilding a broken country and the total demonization of a people in the world, what did the US do? Germany was split in two nations, one held under occupation by US troops for 50 years and the other held under the claw of Moscow for 40 years. No, Germany was not fixed by the US nor by Moscow. While financial contributions surely helped, the only thing that happened was a destruction of the identity of Germany, the indoctrination of guilt in multiple generations of Germans which to this date still are not allowed to deal with our history, the conversion of the economy here in a US-friendly market ruled by capitalism to the degree that we have serious problems now. Right-wings are gaining power due to the failure of the entire democratic system here. The people are losing or have lost their faith in democracy. We have a representative democracy here just like in the US and it is failing slowly but surely. Just wait another 10 years and see how you "fixed" Germany. The US already lost the sympathy of the German people to a large degree during the last 3 years. The result may be our withdrawal from NATO and severing our alliance ties to the US. All it needs is a nationalist government, which we dearly need to save this country from falling into revolution.

Germany took 30+ years to fix... what exactly was fixed? Other than the survivors of WW2 rebuilding a broken country and the total demonization of a people in the world, what did the US do? Germany was split in two nations, one held under occupation by US troops for 50 years and the other held under the claw of Moscow for 40 years. No, Germany was not fixed by the US nor by Moscow. While financial contributions surely helped, the only thing that happened was a destruction of the identity of Germany, the indoctrination of guilt in multiple generations of Germans which to this date still are not allowed to deal with our history, the conversion of the economy here in a US-friendly market ruled by capitalism to the degree that we have serious problems now. Right-wings are gaining power due to the failure of the entire democratic system here. The people are losing or have lost their faith in democracy. We have a representative democracy here just like in the US and it is failing slowly but surely. Just wait another 10 years and see how you "fixed" Germany. The US already lost the sympathy of the German people to a large degree during the last 3 years. The result may be our withdrawal from NATO and severing our alliance ties to the US. All it needs is a nationalist government, which we dearly need to save this country from falling into revolution.


Yeah, thats right....blame it ALL on the US. ALL the problems of Germany are the fault of the US. Then what the US SHOULD have done was to demand reparations from Germany like after WWI and refuse to help rebuild anything there. However, we did help Germany get back on it's feet and prosper. The reunification is the cause of the problems today. A country cannot be expected to double in size and take on a sizeable population that is without modern business or manufacturing processes without a great deal of problems popping up. However, the US makes an easy scapegoat doesn't it? Germany is very good at finding a scapegoat to blame it's problems on huh?

Other than having military in West Germany, what did the US do? I do not blame the US for the problems we have now, but I disagree that the US "fixed" anything here. Everything the US did here was for geostrategical gain. The fear of spreading communism in West Europe, using Germany as a buffer between Russia and France/UK. Our central position in Europe has always been a difficult one and sadly the 2 world wars, which were lost, resulted in a lot of shame for this culture. But the US had not overly much to do with making Germany what it is. This country is a lot older than the 12 years of Nazi Germany we had from 1933 to 1945. Just short from erradicating this country (which was being considered aswell and almost achieved), the US did little good for Germany. If you expect me to be thankful for not killing every German after WW2, then you can wait forever.

Other than having military in West Germany, what did the US do? I do not blame the US for the problems we have now, but I disagree that the US "fixed" anything here. Everything the US did here was for geostrategical gain. The fear of spreading communism in West Europe, using Germany as a buffer between Russia and France/UK. Our central position in Europe has always been a difficult one and sadly the 2 world wars, which were lost, resulted in a lot of shame for this culture. But the US had not overly much to do with making Germany what it is. This country is a lot older than the 12 years of Nazi Germany we had from 1933 to 1945. Just short from erradicating this country (which was being considered aswell and almost achieved), the US did little good for Germany. If you expect me to be thankful for not killing every German after WW2, then you can wait forever.

No, the US just financed the rebuilding through the Marshall Plan. The US supplied the equipment that did the work. The US rebuilt the industrial base that allowed manufacturing to resume. The British rebuilt the automotive sector and brought the Volkswagon into existence. Without this aid, where would Germany be today? Yes, Germany does have a strategicly important location that makes it difficult for it to negotiate the machinations of world politics, but for all that, it was not until the late 70's that the economy really took off. The 80's were the boom times for Germany AND Japan. Approx. 40 years AFTER the war ended.

Where is your evidence that the war is being lost? Have you been there? This war is going to take time, it will not be won overnight, but it will be won.

Watch the news, read the papers.. look outside of just American sources. The Americans are not winning, at least not right now.

Wasn't the intention of going to war in Iraq a part of the Project for a New American Century's before Bush was even elected? It is fairly well known that the Bush family and many of their supporters are linked with/followers of this...And so it almost certainly was the case that Bush had intended on war with Iraq all along...
Yes and the illuminati and the freemasons have a hand in it too. lets not forget the skull and bones society which both Bush and Kerry are members of. :rolleyes:

http://www.masonicinfo.com/illuminati.htm

Hmm... nope.

The Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

Here are a few selected articles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm) from their website from the period in question:

How to Attack Iraq Weekly Standard Editorial, November 16, 1998

A Way to Oust Saddam, Robert Kagan, Weekly Standard, September 28, 1998

Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, New York Times, January 30, 1998

And a list of supporters (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

[Stephistan #28]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoeHoward
Where is your evidence that the war is being lost? Have you been there? This war is going to take time, it will not be won overnight, but it will be won.

Watch the news, read the papers.. look outside of just American sources. The Americans are not winning, at least not right now.

Stephy is very impatient, like all leftists,... like all children.

It's OK,... the grownups will manage things.

Don't fret little one. :)

Watch the news, read the papers.. look outside of just American sources. The Americans are not winning, at least not right now.
We have infinitely more troops, equipment, and time than the Iraqi's. The most conservative kill ratio is 10 to 1, in our favor. The only reason this war is even remotely close to being a losing situation is because we haven't bombed the hot spots off the face of earth.

Yes and the illuminati and the freemasons have a hand in it too. lets not forget the skull and bones society which both Bush and Kerry are members of. :rolleyes:

http://www.masonicinfo.com/illuminati.htm
Has no one heard of the Project for a New American Century?
http://www.newamericancentury.org

True, the Marshall Plan helped financing some of the rebuilding. But Britain did not found "Volkswagen". I believe, you claim things as foreign creations, which are so obviously German, that it is funny and typical for Americans who think they are the godsend cure to the world (or Germany).

A: Kofi Annan has no place to even talk about rule of law while mass genocide is being committed on a daily basis within his own country and he does nothing about it.

B: No governing body, international or not, has the right to tell a nation how it can and can't defend itself.

Fuck the UN. If they hate America so much, they can move out of their AMERICAN-built building and get the fuck out of AMERICAN soil.

Iraq will take years to fix. Germany took 30+ years to fix. Why do people think Iraq will take months at most?
Iraq is NOT Germany. Whole new ball game?

One thing that IS a benefit, the terrorists who want to fight the US are flocking to Iraq to do so. They are the ones causing the trouble there.
Iraqi's do not have a history of using car bombs, but Iranian and Syrians agents do, and they have moved in to keep iraq from developing into a democracy.[/quote]
Can you support this argument with credible sources?

We will fight and defeat them in time. In the end iraq will be a much better country and an example for it's neighbors.
From what I can see, they want no part of US style "freedom"?

The dictatorial regimes in the area fear a free Iraq because their own people may want freedom and that will be the end of them.
The US has miscalculated that the Iraqis wanted US style "freedom", what makes you certain what other countries want?
Other countries condemn the US for supporting dictators and despots, then complain when we take one out and try to reform an entire area to make the peoples lives better. People sure are funny about that.....
The US supported Saddam under worse case scenarios to further the US cause against Iran, and now you want to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens while you don't give a damn for your own citizens?

I spell that H I P O C R I S Y!!

The US supplied the equipment that did the work. The US rebuilt the industrial base that allowed manufacturing to resume.
Actually it was the women that did the rebuilding.

The British rebuilt the automotive sector and brought the Volkswagon into existence.
Volkswagen was founded in 1937.

The 80's were the boom times for Germany AND Japan. Approx. 40 years AFTER the war ended.
The Wirtschaftswunder in Germany started in the '50's. At the end of the 50's Germany was the second strongests economy in the world.

Iraq will take years to fix. Germany took 30+ years to fix. Why do people think Iraq will take months at most?
Iraq is NOT Germany. Whole new ball game?

One thing that IS a benefit, the terrorists who want to fight the US are flocking to Iraq to do so. They are the ones causing the trouble there.Why is that a benefit?

Iraqi's do not have a history of using car bombs, but Iranian and Syrians agents do, and they have moved in to keep iraq from developing into a democracy.
Can you support this argument with credible sources?

We will fight and defeat them in time. In the end iraq will be a much better country and an example for it's neighbors.
From what I can see, they want no part of US style "freedom"?

The dictatorial regimes in the area fear a free Iraq because their own people may want freedom and that will be the end of them.
The US has miscalculated that the Iraqis wanted US style "freedom", what makes you certain what other countries want?
Other countries condemn the US for supporting dictators and despots, then complain when we take one out and try to reform an entire area to make the peoples lives better. People sure are funny about that.....
The US supported Saddam under worse case scenarios to further the US cause against Iran, and now you want to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens while you don't give a damn for your own citizens?

I spell that H I P O C R I S Y!!

Stephy is very impatient, like all leftists,... like all children.

It's OK,... the grownups will manage things.

Don't fret little one

Hey kid, I'm 35 years old.. I'm realistic and am not a "leftist" I have children of my own.. and do tell.. how old are you?

Watch the news, read the papers.. look outside of just American sources. The Americans are not winning, at least not right now.

Actual I was looking for unbiased information from you. But thanks for playing.

Yes and the illuminati and the freemasons have a hand in it too. lets not forget the skull and bones society which both Bush and Kerry are members of. :rolleyes:

Roll those little smilie eyes of yours, it doesn't detract from the truth of the matter:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm


We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.

Signed,

Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider Jr, Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoelli

I spell that H I P O C R I S Y!!
I hate myself for doing this. Im not attacking your points, because I dont have time just yet (give me 15 minutes) but I cant let this past. By no means does this mean your points are not valid.

I spell "H I P O C R I S Y" hypocrisy. :D

[Stephistan #38]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Stephy is very impatient, like all leftists,... like all children.

It's OK,... the grownups will manage things.

Don't fret little one


Hey kid, I'm 35 years old.. I'm realistic and am not a "leftist" I have children of my own.. and do tell.. how old are you?

35..!?

Then you are a little one yet.

Your "chronological" age is not what I was refering to. If you were truly "of age" you'd probably have realized that.

You are a leftist, as my nose is the arbiter of your (or anyone's) "leftistness".

May your children learn from their parents.

As to what they may learn, that we may have a difference of opinion about.

:)

The British rebuilt the automotive sector and brought the Volkswagon into existence.

It was under Hitler's Germany the Volkswagon ("People's Car") was born. They were built to drive on the nice wide Autobahns built by all the "untermenschen" Hitler didn't like.

Actual I was looking for unbiased information from you. But thanks for playing.

I am unbiased.. I'm a Canadian. I have no stake in your election per se.

It was under Hitler's Germany the Volkswagon ("People's Car") was born. They were built to drive on the nice wide Autobahns built by all the "untermenschen" Hitler didn't like.
The Autobahnen were build by Germans. As part of Hitlers promise to create jobs.

I am unbiased.. I'm a Canadian. I have no stake in your election per se.

But can you give me sources that say we are losing? I wanted some sources, is that too much to ask for?

BTW if you are unbiased then why do you seem to be so anti-Bush? I am also the "Prince" of Canada, but I don't have the sources to back that claim up. Since I stated it on the internet, it must be true.

The Autobahnen were build by Germans. As part of Hitlers promise to create jobs.

I thought some of the later Autobahns were constructed using slave labour? Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Has no one heard of the Project for a New American Century?
http://www.newamericancentury.org


Yes, and like the Iluminati it makes for great conspiracy theory, but little else.

True, the Marshall Plan helped financing some of the rebuilding. But Britain did not found "Volkswagen". I believe, you claim things as foreign creations, which are so obviously German, that it is funny and typical for Americans who think they are the godsend cure to the world (or Germany).

I did not say the British "found" Volkswagen. It was a british Colonel who pushed for bringing the plants back online so production could begin again. Your assertion that the US, UK and others did nothing to help Germany after the war is disingenuous and just plain wrong. Of course you will never admit it because of your attitude toward the US. Thats ok, the truth is out there and easily found.

I am unbiased.. I'm a Canadian. I have no stake in your election per se.

Oh yeah...an unbiased Canadian....hmmmm Kind of like bigfoot. We all know they are out there...but noone has ever REALLY seen one. ;)

WAR BEING LOST, PULLOUT DEMANDED IMMEDIATELY
December 8, 1941 - UPI

London - The World Workers Socialist Party (WWSP) is demanding that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill pull all Commonwealth troops out of North Africa after they were dealt a severe blow by German units under the command of General Erwin Rommel. The defeat came a day after the Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and with German troops at the gates of Moscow. "This just shows that Mr. Churchill's war was a misguided blunder.", said Tass Izvestia, a spokeman for the WWSP. "Does he not see what the whole world knows?", asked Mr. Izvestia, who continued, "This mess illustrates Mr. Churchill's mishandling of the war and his lack of an exit strategy." Mr. Churchill responded today, saying he would bow to world opinion and cease the ill-advised military actions against Nazi Germany.

WAR BEING LOST, PULLOUT DEMANDED IMMEDIATELY
December 8, 1941 - UPI

London - The World Workers Socialist Party (WWSP) is demanding that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill pull all Commonwealth troops out of North Africa after they were dealt a severe blow by German units under the command of General Erwin Rommel. The defeat came a day after the Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and with German troops at the gates of Moscow. "This just shows that Mr. Churchill's war was a misguided blunder.", said Tass Izvestia, a spokeman for the WWSP. "Does he not see what the whole world knows?", asked Mr. Izvestia, who continued, "This mess illustrates Mr. Churchill's mishandling of the war and his lack of an exit strategy." Mr. Churchill responded today, saying he would bow to world opinion and cease the ill-advised military actions against Nazi Germany.

Yep...there are ALWAYS those out there who "want" to believe such things. Excellent post....

Hmm... nope.



Here are a few selected articles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm) from their website from the period in question:

How to Attack Iraq Weekly Standard Editorial, November 16, 1998

A Way to Oust Saddam, Robert Kagan, Weekly Standard, September 28, 1998

Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, New York Times, January 30, 1998

And a list of supporters (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)
Did you miss this post? I don't understand how you can suggest that this is a "conspiracy theory", there is no suggestion of a conspiracy, simply that the Bush's have stated support for this organisation and these are some of it's aims. As a non-American, the overall aims of this organisation seem to be dictatorial and non-democratic, I would believe that most non-Americans are against the idea of finding themselves trapped within a world dominated by "American global leadership".

Yes, and like the Iluminati it makes for great conspiracy theory, but little else.

The fact that individuals like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Pearle are all in an organization dedicated to "promoting American global leadership", an organization dedicated to removing Saddam from power 6 years before the second Gulf War, makes it more than a barmy conspiracy theory.

But can you give me sources that say we are losing? I wanted some sources, is that too much to ask for?

BTW if you are unbiased then why do you seem to be so anti-Bush? I am also the "Prince" of Canada, but I don't have the sources to back that claim up. Since I stated it on the internet, it must be true.
Here's a report that discusses the National Intelligence Estimate (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html) on the stability of Iraq. The NIE hasn't been released, but it has been leaked, and apparently the White House has had it since July, while the Congress only recently received it.

The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.

"There's a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages. The officials declined to discuss the key judgments - concise, carefully written statements of intelligence analysts' conclusions - included in the document.
So the best case scenario--and we've yet to have a best case emerge in this whole undertaking--is that we've got a shaky Iraq. Worst case is civil war.

Its pessimistic conclusions were reached even before the recent worsening of the security situation in Iraq, which has included a sharp increase in attacks on American troops and in deaths of Iraqi civilians as well as resistance fighters. Like the new National Intelligence Estimate, the assessments completed in January 2003 were prepared by the National Intelligence Council, which is led by Robert Hutchings and reports to the director of central intelligence. The council is charged with reflecting the consensus of the intelligence agencies. The January 2003 assessments were not formal National Intelligence Estimates, however, which means they were probably not formally approved by the intelligence chiefs.So the situation is getting worse, not ebtter, and the best case scenario included very little stability.

There are also multiple reports about how the coalition forces are basically in control of only whatever ground they happen to occupy, and their control is shaky even then. Large portions of Baghdad are in the control of the local militias and not under coalition control, and forget about US control in places like Fallujah and Samarra and Najaf.

Did you miss this post? I don't understand how you can suggest that this is a "conspiracy theory", there is no suggestion of a conspiracy, simply that the Bush's have stated support for this organisation and these are some of it's aims. As a non-American, the overall aims of this organisation seem to be dictatorial and non-democratic, I would believe that most non-Americans are against the idea of finding themselves trapped within a world dominated by "American global leadership".

Yes, and the Freemasons have been shown to be a shadowy "underground" government just waiting to take control of the world. Those who believe that ANY such organization has the power to "control" the world are deluding themselves. In 1960 a hurricane parked itself over Cuba for 4 days. Castro was convinced that the US had a "weather" machine and was using it to destroy the economy of Cuba!! Such things are routine in the world today....and this is just another example of it.

The fact that individuals like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Pearle are all in an organization dedicated to "promoting American global leadership", an organization dedicated to removing Saddam from power 6 years before the second Gulf War, makes it more than a barmy conspiracy theory.

Yeah....and Rumsfeld and Co. are also planning on controlling the weather next too. How can ANYONE believe such a thing is beyond me.

Yep...there are ALWAYS those out there who "want" to believe such things. Excellent post....
Uhm...had Pearl Harbor not happened, Churchill actually may have tried negotiating peace with Hitler. The moment Pearl Harbor happened however, Churchill knew he'd have the full force of the American war machine...and the war would be vastly different. There was no reason for him to try backing out when America was just getting started. If Osama bin Laden were to destroy major landmarks in France and Germany tomorrow, the "left" probably wouldn't be against the war on the whole quite as much (although the involvement in Iraq is sketchy...).

[Utopio #54]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff Pileon
Yes, and like the Iluminati it makes for great conspiracy theory, but little else.


The fact that individuals like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Pearle are all in an organization dedicated to "promoting American global leadership", an organization dedicated to removing Saddam from power 6 years before the second Gulf War, makes it more than a barmy conspiracy theory.

Does anyone think that Saddam shouldn't have been plotted against for removal..?

Other than lovers of evil tyrants...?

Keep talking Utop,.. Utop=YouDope..?

Hmmmmmm.. perhaps.. :)

Yes, and the Freemasons have been shown to be a shadowy "underground" government just waiting to take control of the world. Those who believe that ANY such organization has the power to "control" the world are deluding themselves. In 1960 a hurricane parked itself over Cuba for 4 days. Castro was convinced that the US had a "weather" machine and was using it to destroy the economy of Cuba!! Such things are routine in the world today....and this is just another example of it.
What are you talking about? Do you not actually read anything? The Project for a New American Century is not a "shadowy" underground group but a well established political organisation with clear and stated aims. The power of this group comes entirely from the people who are members or supporters. The number of people with power within America who follow its doctrines is enough that they can have a serious effect on American policy. These people are not merely accused of being affiliates, but are clearly known and freely admit to being supporters. It is the nature of the policies this organisation advocates publicly that is highly worrying.

[Opal Isle #58]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff Pileon
Yep...there are ALWAYS those out there who "want" to believe such things. Excellent post....


Uhm...had Pearl Harbor not happened, Churchill actually may have tried negotiating peace with Hitler. The moment Pearl Harbor happened however, Churchill knew he'd have the full force of the American war machine...and the war would be vastly different. There was no reason for him to try backing out when America was just getting started. If Osama bin Laden were to destroy major landmarks in France and Germany tomorrow, the "left" probably wouldn't be against the war on the whole quite as much (although the involvement in Iraq is sketchy...).

Doubtful. The left would demand capitulation of the west to the indigenous freedom-fighters of the religion of peace.

The left know nothing but venom toward their opressors, and those oppressors are the people and institutions of the west.

Uhm...had Pearl Harbor not happened, Churchill actually may have tried negotiating peace with Hitler. The moment Pearl Harbor happened however, Churchill knew he'd have the full force of the American war machine...and the war would be vastly different. There was no reason for him to try backing out when America was just getting started. If Osama bin Laden were to destroy major landmarks in France and Germany tomorrow, the "left" probably wouldn't be against the war on the whole quite as much (although the involvement in Iraq is sketchy...).

Thats true....if France or Germany is attacked and a number of their citizens are killed would they be as vocal against the US? How about Canada? They consider themselves to be so benevolent. Would they be if they were attacked? it is always easy to place blame when you are not directly involved, but once you are, it is a different matter altogether.

Don't mistake a well educated, well informed opinion for bias. What is it with Americans and assessing bias to people who don't agree with you? Pretty sad Biff.. Really!
It could also be said "Don't mistake bias for well educated or well informed opinion".

Oh yeah...an unbiased Canadian....hmmmm Kind of like bigfoot. We all know they are out there...but noone has ever REALLY seen one. ;)

Don't mistake a well educated, well informed opinion for bias. What is it with Americans and assessing bias to people who don't agree with you? Pretty sad Biff.. Really!

Thats true....if France or Germany is attacked and a number of their citizens are killed would they be as vocal against the US? How about Canada? They consider themselves to be so benevolent. Would they be if they were attacked? it is always easy to place blame when you are not directly involved, but once you are, it is a different matter altogether.
Congratulations, you are here: ---> "Biff" and guess what...






"Point" <----


At least you were close...but even so, France or Germany could very easily blame the United States for the terror attacks that took place in their nation. After all, terrorism hasn't exactly subsided since 9/11/01

Don't mistake a well educated, well informed opinion for bias. What is it with Americans and assessing bias to people who don't agree with you? Pretty sad Biff.. Really!

I see....so you are well educated (welcome to the club) and well informed so therefore your opinons are not biased? Hmmm...so the pro-UN, anti-US rhetoric is not really biased then is it? Since you don't have any bias then you might want to take a non-sided stance on American politics then. Afterall...those who say they are non-biased prove they are by making such a statement. So I expect in the future you will not take a pro-Kerry or an anti-Bush stance. To do otherwise would show bias would it not?

Don't mistake a well educated, well informed opinion for bias. What is it with Americans and assessing bias to people who don't agree with you? Pretty sad Biff.. Really!
There is bias in essentially any statement made by anyone...Biff is correct that your statement's contain bias, but so do his statements, and my statements, and everyone's statements. Some people just have more/less bias...and I'm not about to sit here and say I am capable of judging levels of bias...I don't think anyone is...best thing to do for yourself is attempting biasing everything to yourself in both directions. I often pretend to be more conservative in debates with liberals. I show both myself and the other person the other side of the story, and in reality, I end up taking a position about half way between.

[Stephistan #62]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff Pileon
Oh yeah...an unbiased Canadian....hmmmm Kind of like bigfoot. We all know they are out there...but noone has ever REALLY seen one.


Don't mistake a well educated, well informed opinion for bias. What is it with Americans and assessing bias to people who don't agree with you? Pretty sad Biff.. Really!

We wouldn't make the mistake of seeing your bias as anything but bias.

Americans have their own bias. Individually. I have my bias. Biff has Biffs. Stephy has Stephy's.

We take what you say (which we can see), not what you "know" (which we can't see) as your bias.

It's pretty sad that you think that bias is a bad thing.

It's also pretty sad that to disgree with you is to be inferior, as implied by you in your negative usage of the word "bias".

:D

Congratulations, you are here: ---> "Biff" and guess what...






"Point" <----


At least you were close...but even so, France or Germany could very easily blame the United States for the terror attacks that took place in their nation. After all, terrorism hasn't exactly subsided since 9/11/01

Yes, the US gets blamed for everything doesn't it? Thats ok, they will be attacked someday. France for taking away the headscarves of muslim girls in school and Germany for any number of assinine reasons.

and I'm not about to sit here and say I am capable of judging levels of bias...I don't think anyone is...
Ummm... judge the relative level of bias of Stephistan vs. MKULTRA.

I see....so you are well educated (welcome to the club) and well informed so therefore your opinons are not biased? Hmmm...so the pro-UN, anti-US rhetoric is not really biased then is it? Since you don't have any bias then you might want to take a non-sided stance on American politics then. Afterall...those who say they are non-biased prove they are by making such a statement. So I expect in the future you will not take a pro-Kerry or an anti-Bush stance. To do otherwise would show bias would it not?

Unless she effectively pointed out the definite pros of both candidates, the definite negatives of both candidates, and the points that would be pros or cons based on personal preferences, then explain that she preferred Kerry because of the pros and cons she's brought forth...that's unbiased...especially because if she preferred Kerry mostly for points that are based on personal preference, she would recognize that Kerry may not necessarily be better or worse objectively, but most definitely is subjectively.

It could also be said "Don't mistake bias for well educated or well informed opinion".

If you believe so, I agree to disagree. I am removed from the situation, some thing you can't claim.. I have a Masters degree in poli-sci and one Dissertation away from a Ph.D I believe my credentials speak for themselves.

Yes, the US gets blamed for everything doesn't it? Thats ok, they will be attacked someday. France for taking away the headscarves of muslim girls in school and Germany for any number of assinine reasons.
Well...at least you were significantly closer to the point this time.

Anyway...have you noticed a decrease in terrorism recently?



------
By the way: "How many 9/11s have happened since 9/11?" eh...don't ask me that please...that's the trick to dodge the question. Don't dodge the question

Does anyone think that Saddam shouldn't have been plotted against for removal..?

Other than lovers of evil tyrants...?

Just because I am wary of an organization that wants American global leadership--I'll be buggered if I'm going to let some Right-wing X-tian Fundementalists run the world I live in--and gets into power with the aim of overthrowing a country does not make me, as you so subtley implied, a lover of evil tyrants.

Keep talking Utop,.. Utop=YouDope..?

Hmmmmmm.. perhaps.. :)

Wow! Half of my name ryhmes with dope! Oh dear, all my arguments must now be worthless! You are obviously my intellectual superior!! [coughcough]

EDIT for spelling.

and I'm not about to sit here and say I am capable of judging levels of bias...I don't think anyone is...Ummm... judge the relative level of bias of Stephistan vs. MKULTRA.
English your second language?

[Stephistan #71]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneRule
It could also be said "Don't mistake bias for well educated or well informed opinion".



If you believe so, I agree to disagree. I am removed from the situation, some thing you can't claim.. I have a Masters degree in poli-sci and one Dissertation away from a Ph.D I believe my credentials speak for themselves.

I don't particularly care about your creds Stephy.

Your words, which we can see, tell me you are a superior-minded leftist with the typical America hating attitude of your ilk.

I, on the other hand, am a superior-minded rightist with the typical America loving attitude of my ilk.

Your apparent inability to see that bias is inherent in a point-of-view, in any opinion, tells me volumes about your education and mindset.

If you believe so, I agree to disagree. I am removed from the situation, some thing you can't claim.. I have a Masters degree in poli-sci and one Dissertation away from a Ph.D I believe my credentials speak for themselves.

Wow....and still cannot recognize bias. Of course you are biased. I am EXTREMELY biased but I will admit it and tell you WHY I am. Your bias is also easily read in your posts. You might want to do some soul searching and then maybe you might see that I am right.

footnote: Believe as you wish, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with any one about bias. It's pointless.

I would like to see Bush take Kofi Annian and throw him in some Isreali jail.

Well...at least you were significantly closer to the point this time.

Anyway...have you noticed a decrease in terrorism recently?



------
By the way: "How many 9/11s have happened since 9/11?" eh...don't ask me that please...that's the trick to dodge the question. Don't dodge the question

Actually there has been a slight decrease in terrorism. The Australian embassy bombing aside, there has been a decrease. Although I heard on the radio this morning that Al Qaeda is worried about it's "credibility" as a terrorist group so it HAS to stage a "spectacular" attack against the US between now and inauguration day. Go figure....

Actually there has been a slight decrease in terrorism. The Australian embassy bombing aside, there has been a decrease. Although I heard on the radio this morning that Al Qaeda is worried about it's "credibility" as a terrorist group so it HAS to stage a "spectacular" attack against the US between now and inauguration day. Go figure....
Oh...so all that stuff that is happening in the middle east is just leftist propaganda? I'm glad we've had that cleared up. I was about to vote for the wrong person.

A decrease of terrorism... errrrrr...... did I miss something? What kinda planet do you come from?

[Utopio #74]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Does anyone think that Saddam shouldn't have been plotted against for removal..?

Other than lovers of evil tyrants...?

Just because I am wary of an organization that wants American global leadership--I'll be buggerd if I'm going to let some Right-wing X-tian Fundementalists run the world I live in--and gets into power with the aim of overthrowing a country does not make me, as you so subtley implied, a lover of evil tyrants.

Quote:
Keep talking Utop,.. Utop=YouDope..?

Hmmmmmm.. perhaps..


Wow! Half of my name ryhmes with dope! Oh dear, all my arguments must now be worthless! You are obviously my intellectual superior!! [coughcough]

Yes,.. the Utop=YouDope thing was rather amusing. :) And silly. But amusing.

The "AIM" of all nations is to promote their interests.

If that means that a nation decides that pre-emptively eliminating a percieved threat (whether imminent or not), then that's what it means.

If other's think that is "unjust", they are free to act as they wish.

We also DO want global leadership, as would any nation with any sense that isn't more pleased with subserviating itself to others "smarter" than themselves, as we are the deserved ones to wield it, in our own opinion.

And the world will be a much better place for it.

Or not.

:)

Let's see what history says.

Oh...so all that stuff that is happening in the middle east is just leftist propaganda? I'm glad we've had that cleared up. I was about to vote for the wrong person.

Well...since when has the middle east been free of terrorism? I doubt there will EVER be a lack of terrorism in that part of the world. I spent 2 1/2 years booting around there between 1996 and 2000 and I saw a LOT of things going on. I was at the Khobar towers. I saw what the terrorists can and will do. Has terrorism decreased elsewhere? yes it has.

footnote: Believe as you wish, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with any one about bias. It's pointless.
Its just republican attacks. If you don't agree with tem usualy they say you are biased.
Plus girls are usually at a disadvantage in pissing contests I'd assume...

If you believe so, I agree to disagree. I am removed from the situation, some thing you can't claim.. I have a Masters degree in poli-sci and one Dissertation away from a Ph.D I believe my credentials speak for themselves.
That doesn't qualify you to make an analysis of military operations (you would need a degree in history, at least, preferably military history or military scienct) or of the legality of said operations (you would need to be a lawyer).

It does, however, qualify you to attend UN cocktail parties.

Did the big-bad righties scare off the poor widdle Stephy with their nasty-wasty claim of bias..!?

Ahhhhhhhhhh...

Please come back,.. the fuel of your (biased) views is very much appreciated, actually..!

Please, please come back,.. we LOVE hearing the rantings of the left..!

:D

Well...since when has the middle east been free of terrorism? I doubt there will EVER be a lack of terrorism in that part of the world. I spent 2 1/2 years booting around there between 1996 and 2000 and I saw a LOT of things going on. I was at the Khobar towers. I saw what the terrorists can and will do. Has terrorism decreased elsewhere? yes it has.
No offense to your service to our country, or to any one's service, but honestly, I tend to get sick of people using their military service as a reason to support their opinion: "I was there, how can that other guy know anything at all?" I don't deny that terrorism has always existed in the Middle East, but for you to deny that terrorism in the middle east has increased since the United States got heavily involved there after 9/11 sounds pretty moronic to me. And terrorism world wide probably hasn't really decreased so much as returned to the level it was it.

Its just republican attacks. If you don't agree with tem usualy they say you are biased. Plus girls are usually at a disadvantage in pissing contests I'd assume...

You are quite insightful. So if someone does not agree with you does that make them biased? Bias is found in EVERY statement ever made by anyone. We are all biased to one extent or another. That is a fact....to say that only Republicans claim bias is a very shortsighted statement.

That doesn't qualify you to make an analysis of military operations (you would need a degree in history, at least, preferably military history or military scienct) or of the legality of said operations (you would need to be a lawyer).

It does, however, qualify you to attend UN cocktail parties.
Mostly true...except that the parenthetical stuff could be better:
(you would need an extensive knowledge of military history) and (you would need an extensive knowledge of International and/or American Constitutional Law)

You are quite insightful. So if someone does not agree with you does that make them biased? Bias is found in EVERY statement ever made by anyone. We are all biased to one extent or another. That is a fact....to say that only Republicans claim bias is a very shortsighted statement.
I actually agree with Biff on something...which means this statement is undeniable true...since Biff said it and yet I agree.

Wow....and still cannot recognize bias. Of course you are biased. I am EXTREMELY biased but I will admit it and tell you WHY I am. Your bias is also easily read in your posts. You might want to do some soul searching and then maybe you might see that I am right.

Then riddle me this Biff.. why is it only Bush I have a problem with? Could it be I'm biased against him? maybe.. but no. Could it be that I see his dangerous foreign policy? Now we are getting some where.

Any way as stated.. I'm not going to argue an American bias when I'm not even American.

Then riddle me this Biff.. why is it only Bush I have a problem with? Could it be I'm biased against him? maybe.. but no. Could it be that I see his dangerous foreign policy? Now we are getting some where.

Any way as stated.. I'm not going to argue an American bias when I'm not even American.
...to say you're not biased is to say you haven't an opinion.

Then riddle me this Biff.. why is it only Bush I have a problem with? Could it be I'm biased against him? maybe.. but no. Could it be that I see his dangerous foreign policy? Now we are getting some where.

Any way as stated.. I'm not going to argue an American bias when I'm not even American.

No, you have a problem with Bush because he is not a liberal. He is anathema to you because he does not share your world view. You decry his very existence because he stands for things that you, as a liberal, do not agree with. There is your bias.

I do not like everything he does or stands for either, but I see Kerry as something far worse and more sinister. Sure, he has the hard core liberals won over, but people like me who don't typically vote for either Republicans or Democrats are starting to see him for what he is....an opportunist who will say and do whatever it takes to win. He is just about to the point Gore was when he said he would do "anything" to be our President. Give him some time and he will self destruct just like Gore.

[Stephistan #90]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff Pileon
Wow....and still cannot recognize bias. Of course you are biased. I am EXTREMELY biased but I will admit it and tell you WHY I am. Your bias is also easily read in your posts. You might want to do some soul searching and then maybe you might see that I am right.

Then riddle me this Biff.. why is it only Bush I have a problem with? Could it be I'm biased against him? maybe.. but no. Could it be that I see his dangerous foreign policy? Now we are getting some where.

Any way as stated.. I'm not going to argue an American bias when I'm not even American.

You're proving yourself more "ignorant" as you speak, Stephy.

"Not going to argue an American bias when I'm not even American"...!!

What..?

Bias is your point of view, Stephy.

We all have one. You state yours when you speak. As do we all.

Now,... what does this have to do with pissing..? :)

What you see as dangerous foreign policy, some see as necessary foreign policy.

Now let's move on, little one.

:D

I actually agree with Biff on something...which means this statement is undeniable true...since Biff said it and yet I agree.

Nah....I am hardly right most of the time.....this is a game for me to pass my workday with. ;)

I do not like everything he does or stands for either, but I see Kerry as something far worse and more sinister. Sure, he has the hard core liberals won over, but people like me who don't typically vote for either Republicans or Democrats are starting to see him for what he is....an opportunist who will say and do whatever it takes to win. He is just about to the point Gore was when he said he would do "anything" to be our President. Give him some time and he will self destruct just like Gore.
That statement shows just how far out of touch with political reality you are. Kerry is far from a favorite of the hard-core liberals, and he certainly hasn't won us over. If anything, Kerry is the favorite of the moderate to conservative Democratic side of the party, and most polls show that he's dead even or ahead with independents. The liberal side of the party may end up voting for him, but it will be a vote against Bush--not because we have any great love for Kerry.

Nah....I am hardly right most of the time...
Huh?

Mostly true...except that the parenthetical stuff could be better:
(you would need an extensive knowledge of military history) and (you would need an extensive knowledge of International and/or American Constitutional Law)
I'll go along with that. Especially since I have the former! :D

That statement shows just how far out of touch with political reality you are. Kerry is far from a favorite of the hard-core liberals, and he certainly hasn't won us over. If anything, Kerry is the favorite of the moderate to conservative Democratic side of the party, and most polls show that he's dead even or ahead with independents. The liberal side of the party may end up voting for him, but it will be a vote against Bush--not because we have any great love for Kerry.

You may be right....the only "hard-core" liberals I have heard from are our canadian friends. they see him as the second coming of christ for some reason.

Huh?

Yeah...I confuse myself a lot as well. But I snap out of it....usually.

You may be right....the only "hard-core" liberals I have heard from are our canadian friends. they see him as the second coming of christ for some reason.
Nah--they just see him like the hard core pragmatic liberals do, as the only real alternative at the moment, but certainly not the long term solution.

Nah--they just see him like the hard core pragmatic liberals do, as the only real alternative at the moment, but certainly not the long term solution.

he is a poor alternative and a very bad solution to any problem. If he wins we will be in some very serious trouble. His wanting to open a dialogue with Al Qaeda is quite telling. you don't talk with the guy who has the knife at your neck, you fight him. Kerry is a talker and he will lead us to defeat.

Yeah...I confuse myself a lot as well. But I snap out of it....usually.
I didn't confuse myself. You confused me. Your statement didn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[Incertonia #97]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff Pileon
I do not like everything he does or stands for either, but I see Kerry as something far worse and more sinister. Sure, he has the hard core liberals won over, but people like me who don't typically vote for either Republicans or Democrats are starting to see him for what he is....an opportunist who will say and do whatever it takes to win. He is just about to the point Gore was when he said he would do "anything" to be our President. Give him some time and he will self destruct just like Gore.


That statement shows just how far out of touch with political reality you are. Kerry is far from a favorite of the hard-core liberals, and he certainly hasn't won us over. If anything, Kerry is the favorite of the moderate to conservative Democratic side of the party, and most polls show that he's dead even or ahead with independents. The liberal side of the party may end up voting for him, but it will be a vote against Bush--not because we have any great love for Kerry.

Incertonia has this one right.

Kerry has the hard-core soft-core democrats won over. :)

The hard-core leftists are absolutely digusted with him.

Of course they're disgusted with everyone, so they'll side with Flipper because he isn't Bush.

Bush is the anti-christ (stretching the christian metaphor into unrecognizability of course).

he is a poor alternative and a very bad solution to any problem. If he wins we will be in some very serious trouble. His wanting to open a dialogue with Al Qaeda is quite telling. you don't talk with the guy who has the knife at your neck, you fight him. Kerry is a talker and he will lead us to defeat.
Where do you come up with this shit, Biff? Open a dialogue with al Qaeda? Come on--if you're going to make shit up, it ought to at least be believable.

You know...until Bush took office, Israel seemed relatively quiet because of that dumbass, liberal "talker" that was in office...damn those peace talks. Saving lives is such a bore.

Where do you come up with this shit, Biff? Open a dialogue with al Qaeda? Come on--if you're going to make shit up, it ought to at least be believable.

Kerry said that was one of the things he wanted to do. To open a dialogue with them and learn why they hate us so. I cannot find a link to it, but I saw him say this on the news a few months ago.

You know...until Bush took office, Israel seemed relatively quiet because of that dumbass, liberal "talker" that was in office...damn those peace talks. Saving lives is such a bore.

Yeah...Clinton saved a lot of lives didn't he? Yasser Arafat did not want peace...he just wants the destruction of Israel.

You're proving yourself more "ignorant" as you speak, Stephy.

"Not going to argue an American bias when I'm not even American"...!!

What..?

Bias is your point of view, Stephy.

We all have one. You state yours when you speak. As do we all.

Now,... what does this have to do with pissing..? :)

What you see as dangerous foreign policy, some see as necessary foreign policy.

Now let's move on, little one.

Ok, player side of me aside, you're coming very close to flamebait here. I suggest you change your tactics before I have to issue a warning. Thank You.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Kerry said that was one of the things he wanted to do. To open a dialogue with them and learn why they hate us so. I cannot find a link to it, but I saw him say this on the news a few months ago.
Honestly, I can see why you oppose this, however...you can't stop terrorism with violence. You've got to find out what they want...and if it is something reasonable...like less US involvement in the Middle East, then it is something highly accomplishable that Kerry could do to end Muslim Extremists hatred of the United States. However, if it is some unreasonable demand, I would hope that Kerry reinvigorating the efforts on the war on terror until the terrorists were ready to be reasonable. Like it or not though Biff, killing them isn't going to make them like us...and we can't kill them all.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21, 2004 -- In the interests of peace, justice and the rule of law, nations must band together to defeat the scourge of terrorism, President Bush told the United Nations today.

Bush, speaking to the General Assembly in New York, said, "Every nation that wants peace will share the benefits of a freer world, and every nation that seeks peace has an obligation to help build that world."

Bush called on nations to help the United States and coalition allies build democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush also announced a proposal to establish a Democracy Fund in the United Nations to help foster that change.

"For decades, the circle of liberty and security and development has been expanding in our world," Bush said. "This progress has brought unity to Europe, self-government to Latin America and Asia, and new hope to Africa. Now we have the historic chance to widen the circle even further, to fight radicalism and terror with justice and dignity, to achieve a true peace founded on human freedom."

Bush said countries cannot isolate themselves from terrorist attacks. They cannot seek safety by ignoring failed states and the conditions that foster extremism. Security in the globally linked new century relies on advancing freedom and dignity for all peoples, Bush said. "These rights are advancing across the world, and across the world the enemies of human rights are responding with violence," the president said.

Bush cited the shocking terror attack on a school in Beslan, Russia, as one instance of the depths of hatred terrorists have. He said Svetlana Dzebisov was held hostage in the school with her son and nephew. Her nephew was killed.

"She recently visited the cemetery and saw what she called the little graves," Bush said. "She said, 'I understand that there is evil in the world, but what have these little creatures done?'

"Members of the United Nations, the Russian children did nothing to deserve such awful suffering and fright and death," Bush said. "The people of Madrid and Jerusalem and Istanbul and Baghdad have done nothing to deserve sudden and random murder. These acts violate the standards of justice in all cultures and the principles of all religions. All civilized nations are in this struggle together, and all must fight the murderers."

Bush said the United States is determined to destroy terror networks, and he thanked the nations cooperating in this effort. He thanked the nations that formed the coalition that defeated the Taliban and those that freed the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein.

The president also addressed steps taken to get at the roots of terrorism -- the hopelessness that drives people to embrace extreme philosophies. "Defending our ideals is vital, but it is not enough," he said. "Our broader mission as U.N. members is to apply these ideals to the great issues of our time. Our wider goal is to promote hope and progress as the alternatives to hatred and violence. Our great purpose is to build a better world beyond the war on terror."

Bush cited efforts the United States is making in such pursuits as helping in the global battle against AIDS; confronting the evil of trafficking in human beings; changing the way the United States confronts poverty, corruption and aid; and working to relieve the crushing burden of debt on the poorest nations.

He also said the United Nations needs more effective tools "to stabilize regions in turmoil and to halt religious violence and ethnic cleansing." The United States and Italy have proposed a global peace operations initiative in which the richest countries of the world will train 75,000 peacekeepers, initially from Africa, so they can conduct operations on that continent and elsewhere.

Finally, Bush said that because the United Nations believes in human dignity, peaceful nations must stand for the advance of democracy. "No other system of government has done more to protect minorities, to secure the rights of labor, to raise the status of women or to channel human energy to the pursuits of peace," the president said.

Democracies are alive in all cultures encompassing all ethnicities, religions, traditions and races, Bush said. "When it comes to the desire for liberty and justice, there is no clash of civilizations," he said. "People everywhere are capable of freedom and worthy of freedom."

He said that freedom is finding a way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the United Nations must continue to support democracies in those nations. "The liberty that many have won at a cost must be secured," he said. "As members of the United Nations, we all have a stake in the success of the world's newest democracies."

The Afghan people, the president said, are showing extraordinary courage under difficult conditions. Forces loyal to the national government are fighting the Taliban remnants, and the nation is preparing for a presidential election Oct. 9, he noted.

Bush said that the idea that 10 million Afghans would register to vote -- including more than 4 million women -- should answer the question of whether Muslim societies can be democratic societies. "The Afghan people are giving their answer," he said.

In Iraq, sovereignty has returned. He said the nation, long a pariah, has rejoined the community of nations. "The government of Prime Minister (Ayad) Allawi has earned the support of every nation that believes in self- determination and desires peace," he said. "The U.N. and its member nations must respond to Prime Minister Allawi's requests and do more to help build an Iraq that is secure, democratic, federal and free."

And Iraq needs the help. He said the enemies of democracy know that if Iraq succeeds, it will be a decisive blow against their ambitions for that region. "So a terrorist group associated with al Qaeda is now one of the main groups killing the innocent in Iraq today, conducting a campaign of bombings against civilians and the beheadings of bound men," he said.

He said coalition forces in Iraq -- along with Iraqi security forces -- are taking on these enemies so "peaceful nations around the world will never have to face them within our own borders."

Bush said that as elections approach in Afghanistan and Iraq the enemies of democracy will step up the attacks. "The work ahead is demanding, but these difficulties will not shake our conviction that the future of Afghanistan and Iraq is a future of liberty," he said. "The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat, it is to prevail. … We will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled."

That's really long, so I stopped reading after the first retarded part of the article:

Bush, speaking to the General Assembly in New York

Yea...I couldn't take it after that.

Honestly, I can see why you oppose this, however...you can't stop terrorism with violence. You've got to find out what they want...and if it is something reasonable...like less US involvement in the Middle East, then it is something highly accomplishable that Kerry could do to end Muslim Extremists hatred of the United States. However, if it is some unreasonable demand, I would hope that Kerry reinvigorating the efforts on the war on terror until the terrorists were ready to be reasonable. Like it or not though Biff, killing them isn't going to make them like us...and we can't kill them all.

"Reasonable terrorists"??? LMAO!!!

Who says we can't kill 'em all? Besides, we just have to kill enough of them to make the rest see the futility of their endeavors. Then the people who harbor and support them will throw them out on their asses, and terrorists cannot operate without that support.

[Stephistan #110]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You're proving yourself more "ignorant" as you speak, Stephy.

"Not going to argue an American bias when I'm not even American"...!!

What..?

Bias is your point of view, Stephy.

We all have one. You state yours when you speak. As do we all.

Now,... what does this have to do with pissing..?

What you see as dangerous foreign policy, some see as necessary foreign policy.

Now let's move on, little one.


Ok, player side of me aside, you're coming very close to flamebait here. I suggest you change your tactics before I have to issue a warning. Thank You.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

I rather thought the "poor widdle Stephy" line would have been more provocative.. :D

I agree with you, of course. Just playing up the "rabid rightist" against the "rabid non-commitalist leftist" angle.

We shall behave more "proper" in future....

Under which circumstances do I raise my pinky again....? :)

:D

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21, 2004 -- In the interests of peace, justice and the rule of law, nations must band together to defeat the scourge of terrorism, President Bush told the United Nations today.

Bush, speaking to the General Assembly in New York, said, "Every nation that wants peace will share the benefits of a freer world, and every nation that seeks peace has an obligation to help build that world."

Bush called on nations to help the United States and coalition allies build democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush also announced a proposal to establish a Democracy Fund in the United Nations to help foster that change.

"For decades, the circle of liberty and security and development has been expanding in our world," Bush said. "This progress has brought unity to Europe, self-government to Latin America and Asia, and new hope to Africa. Now we have the historic chance to widen the circle even further, to fight radicalism and terror with justice and dignity, to achieve a true peace founded on human freedom."

Bush said countries cannot isolate themselves from terrorist attacks. They cannot seek safety by ignoring failed states and the conditions that foster extremism. Security in the globally linked new century relies on advancing freedom and dignity for all peoples, Bush said. "These rights are advancing across the world, and across the world the enemies of human rights are responding with violence," the president said.

Bush cited the shocking terror attack on a school in Beslan, Russia, as one instance of the depths of hatred terrorists have. He said Svetlana Dzebisov was held hostage in the school with her son and nephew. Her nephew was killed.

"She recently visited the cemetery and saw what she called the little graves," Bush said. "She said, 'I understand that there is evil in the world, but what have these little creatures done?'

"Members of the United Nations, the Russian children did nothing to deserve such awful suffering and fright and death," Bush said. "The people of Madrid and Jerusalem and Istanbul and Baghdad have done nothing to deserve sudden and random murder. These acts violate the standards of justice in all cultures and the principles of all religions. All civilized nations are in this struggle together, and all must fight the murderers."

Bush said the United States is determined to destroy terror networks, and he thanked the nations cooperating in this effort. He thanked the nations that formed the coalition that defeated the Taliban and those that freed the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein.

The president also addressed steps taken to get at the roots of terrorism -- the hopelessness that drives people to embrace extreme philosophies. "Defending our ideals is vital, but it is not enough," he said. "Our broader mission as U.N. members is to apply these ideals to the great issues of our time. Our wider goal is to promote hope and progress as the alternatives to hatred and violence. Our great purpose is to build a better world beyond the war on terror."

Bush cited efforts the United States is making in such pursuits as helping in the global battle against AIDS; confronting the evil of trafficking in human beings; changing the way the United States confronts poverty, corruption and aid; and working to relieve the crushing burden of debt on the poorest nations.

He also said the United Nations needs more effective tools "to stabilize regions in turmoil and to halt religious violence and ethnic cleansing." The United States and Italy have proposed a global peace operations initiative in which the richest countries of the world will train 75,000 peacekeepers, initially from Africa, so they can conduct operations on that continent and elsewhere.

Finally, Bush said that because the United Nations believes in human dignity, peaceful nations must stand for the advance of democracy. "No other system of government has done more to protect minorities, to secure the rights of labor, to raise the status of women or to channel human energy to the pursuits of peace," the president said.

Democracies are alive in all cultures encompassing all ethnicities, religions, traditions and races, Bush said. "When it comes to the desire for liberty and justice, there is no clash of civilizations," he said. "People everywhere are capable of freedom and worthy of freedom."

He said that freedom is finding a way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the United Nations must continue to support democracies in those nations. "The liberty that many have won at a cost must be secured," he said. "As members of the United Nations, we all have a stake in the success of the world's newest democracies."

The Afghan people, the president said, are showing extraordinary courage under difficult conditions. Forces loyal to the national government are fighting the Taliban remnants, and the nation is preparing for a presidential election Oct. 9, he noted.

Bush said that the idea that 10 million Afghans would register to vote -- including more than 4 million women -- should answer the question of whether Muslim societies can be democratic societies. "The Afghan people are giving their answer," he said.

In Iraq, sovereignty has returned. He said the nation, long a pariah, has rejoined the community of nations. "The government of Prime Minister (Ayad) Allawi has earned the support of every nation that believes in self- determination and desires peace," he said. "The U.N. and its member nations must respond to Prime Minister Allawi's requests and do more to help build an Iraq that is secure, democratic, federal and free."

And Iraq needs the help. He said the enemies of democracy know that if Iraq succeeds, it will be a decisive blow against their ambitions for that region. "So a terrorist group associated with al Qaeda is now one of the main groups killing the innocent in Iraq today, conducting a campaign of bombings against civilians and the beheadings of bound men," he said.

He said coalition forces in Iraq -- along with Iraqi security forces -- are taking on these enemies so "peaceful nations around the world will never have to face them within our own borders."

Bush said that as elections approach in Afghanistan and Iraq the enemies of democracy will step up the attacks. "The work ahead is demanding, but these difficulties will not shake our conviction that the future of Afghanistan and Iraq is a future of liberty," he said. "The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat, it is to prevail. … We will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled."
I dared to read and I dare say what a waste of time. I would love to take the time to take that apart a paragraph at a time but somehow I am lacking the motivation. I am sure most people are fairly smart enough to realize what a pile of bull excrement that Bush's speech contains. His words ring hollow and his comprehension of the difference between truth and fiction is non existent.

Well...since when has the middle east been free of terrorism? I doubt there will EVER be a lack of terrorism in that part of the world. I spent 2 1/2 years booting around there between 1996 and 2000 and I saw a LOT of things going on. I was at the Khobar towers. I saw what the terrorists can and will do. Has terrorism decreased elsewhere? yes it has.
Terrorism has decreased? NOT!! :eek:

Honestly, I can see why you oppose this, however...you can't stop terrorism with violence. You've got to find out what they want...and if it is something reasonable...like less US involvement in the Middle East, then it is something highly accomplishable that Kerry could do to end Muslim Extremists hatred of the United States. However, if it is some unreasonable demand, I would hope that Kerry reinvigorating the efforts on the war on terror until the terrorists were ready to be reasonable. Like it or not though Biff, killing them isn't going to make them like us...and we can't kill them all.

Well....Al Qaeda has said that if the US would convert to Islam the attacks would stop. Their aim is to create a Muslim world. I for one do not want to be a Muslim. I do believe that if Gore had been President that he would have tried to appease them somehow.

Well....Al Qaeda has said that if the US would convert to Islam the attacks would stop. Their aim is to create a Muslim world. I for one do not want to be a Muslim. I do believe that if Gore had been President that he would have tried to appease them somehow.
Nonsense.

Nonsense.

No, thats what OBL said....if the US would convert to Islam, the attacks would stop. At first the attacks were meant to drive the US out of Saudi Arabia. We moved out of Saudi Arabia...then the demands changed. You should read up about the "Muslim Brotherhood" because THATS what has influenced OBL and his followers.

http://www.ummah.org.uk/ikhwan/

A huge tree of "sub-goals" branches from these main objectives which are derived from the Quran and the tradition of the prophet (pbuh) [3,4]:

1- Building the Muslim individual: brother or sister with a strong body, high manners, cultured thought, ability to earn, strong faith, correct worship, conscious of time, of benefit to others, organized, and self-struggling character [3].
2- Building the Muslim family: choosing a good wife (husband), educating children Islamicaly, and inviting other families.
3- Building the Muslim society (thru building individuals and families) and addressing the problems of the society realistically.
4- Building the Muslim state.
5- Building the Khilafa (basically a shape of unity between the Islamic states).
6- Mastering the world with Islam.

"Reasonable terrorists"??? LMAO!!!

Who says we can't kill 'em all? Besides, we just have to kill enough of them to make the rest see the futility of their endeavors. Then the people who harbor and support them will throw them out on their asses, and terrorists cannot operate without that support.
What the world sees today is the futility of the US endeavour to kill all terrorists, which adds fuel to the already blazing hot inferno. Lesson being: your tactics failed. Admit it and you shall be forgiven. Change your ways and you shall be praised. Ask others to help create a more peaceful world by promoting peace instead of war and you shall receive support. I will never support what the US did in the last 3 years but I would support it if the US wanted to remove the cause of terrorism. And no, most terrorists do not want a "muslim world".

Seen a few points here about terrorism, etc...
although a dialogue at times could work, i think it should not be given to groups considered TERRORISTS. just to save time, i'm refering to those groups that think killing innocents to achieve a political agenda is justified. We should maybe speak with the supporters then....
with groups like al-qaeda.... well they'll always be against the christian west. They want freedom for all muslim countries and a return of all lands once controlled by muslims. So spain and portugal are screwed then as a large chunk of the Iberian penninsula was controlled by muslims for a couple of centuries. Also what about south eastern europe, that was controlled by muslims at one time aswell.
They'll always find an excuse to kill and maim their perceived ennemies

They'll always find an excuse to kill and maim their perceived ennemies
And I thought you are talking about the US there for a second.

No, thats what OBL said....if the US would convert to Islam, the attacks would stop. At first the attacks were meant to drive the US out of Saudi Arabia. We moved out of Saudi Arabia...then the demands changed. You should read up about the "Muslim Brotherhood" because THATS what has influenced OBL and his followers.

http://www.ummah.org.uk/ikhwan/

A huge tree of "sub-goals" branches from these main objectives which are derived from the Quran and the tradition of the prophet (pbuh) [3,4]:

1- Building the Muslim individual: brother or sister with a strong body, high manners, cultured thought, ability to earn, strong faith, correct worship, conscious of time, of benefit to others, organized, and self-struggling character [3].
2- Building the Muslim family: choosing a good wife (husband), educating children Islamicaly, and inviting other families.
3- Building the Muslim society (thru building individuals and families) and addressing the problems of the society realistically.
4- Building the Muslim state.
5- Building the Khilafa (basically a shape of unity between the Islamic states).
6- Mastering the world with Islam. I don't think that's what Gigatron was declaring nonsense--it was your assertion that Gore would have been an appeaser. Considering that he was Clinton's front man in the war against al Qaeda (please spare me your rhetoric if you're going to argue Clinton did nothing against OBL and al Qaeda), he certainly had a track record as an active opponent and not as an appeaser.

I don't think that's what Gigatron was declaring nonsense--it was your assertion that Gore would have been an appeaser. Considering that he was Clinton's front man in the war against al Qaeda (please spare me your rhetoric if you're going to argue Clinton did nothing against OBL and al Qaeda), he certainly had a track record as an active opponent and not as an appeaser.

Oh I know Clinton was not an appeaser, but he could have done more to combat Al Qaeda. He certainly had justification to go into Afganistan, but he tried to negotiate with the Taliban instead.

Al Qaeda most certainly does want to crate a Muslim world as OBL has publicly stated that a return of the Caliphate is the desire of his "movement." Thats what we are fighting against and our most liberal friends just do not see that for some reason.

Well before I believe such fear propaganda spreading, can you show me where OBL claimed that he wants to rule teh world with Islam? I'm not supporting killing of innocents for anything, but ruling the world.. come on, these guys are a little more realistic than that.

Well before I believe such fear propaganda spreading, can you show me where OBL claimed that he wants to rule teh world with Islam? I'm not supporting killing of innocents for anything, but ruling the world.. come on, these guys are a little more realistic than that.

I will try to find a link, but it was during the Clinton years that he said this. He is well known to support the return of the Caliphate and the spread of Islam. That you do not know that is not surprising to me since you see the US as a great danger, so you would miss the real enemy in your own back yard. As for fear propaganda, what is that PNAC nonsense if it is not propaganda?

Oh I know Clinton was not an appeaser, but he could have done more to combat Al Qaeda. He certainly had justification to go into Afganistan, but he tried to negotiate with the Taliban instead.

Al Qaeda most certainly does want to crate a Muslim world as OBL has publicly stated that a return of the Caliphate is the desire of his "movement." Thats what we are fighting against and our most liberal friends just do not see that for some reason.
Clinton had his hands full--no pun intended--with his bogus impeachment. He wanted to go in to Afghanistan, at least with missiles and bombs and special forces units, but every time he tried, he was accused of trying to deflect attention from his impeachment proceedings. Sure, he brought some of that on himself--if he'd kept his dick in his pants, they'd have had nothing on him--but let's be honest here. There was no way that that Congress, led by Gingrich and Delay, and later by Hastert and DeLay, was ever going to approve military intervention in Afghanistan. It just wasn't going to happen. Clinton's lucky he got off the shots he did.

This might help you.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm

Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.

Current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems “non-Islamic” and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries–particularly Saudi Arabia. Issued statement under banner of “the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders” in February 1998, saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens—civilian or military—and their allies everywhere. Merged with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Al-Jihad) in June 2001.

Clinton had his hands full--no pun intended--with his bogus impeachment. He wanted to go in to Afghanistan, at least with missiles and bombs and special forces units, but every time he tried, he was accused of trying to deflect attention from his impeachment proceedings. Sure, he brought some of that on himself--if he'd kept his dick in his pants, they'd have had nothing on him--but let's be honest here. There was no way that that Congress, led by Gingrich and Delay, and later by Hastert and DeLay, was ever going to approve military intervention in Afghanistan. It just wasn't going to happen. Clinton's lucky he got off the shots he did.

So what we are saying is that Clintons penis is somewhat responsible for this mess. ;)

So what we are saying is that Clintons penis is somewhat responsible for this mess. ;)
Well, even though you put the smiley on there, no. I'm saying the wingnuts like Ken Starr and Richard Mellon Scaife (the bankroller) and Rush Limbaugh (the mouthpiece) and the Republican led Congress (the enablers) have a lot more responsibility than has ever been laid at their feet. And if I ever have the chance to tell them to their faces, I will.

Totally agree. The only people it seems left who think this was a good idea are the blind faithful to Bush it would appear. Any one with half a brain has to know this was a complete blunder.

Thanks for showing the left's usual conceit that only those whom are liberals are enlightened. I find your arguements to be very conceited. What's funny is that you and I may even agree on half or even more (!) issues (I'm a centrist, I don't like either party). Yet the way you automatically put down the right shows a remarkable lack of acceptance to other ideas. :(

And he wants world rule where? Is the US an islamic nation? Is Germany an Islamic nation? France? UK? Any other nation not in the middle east? As far as I see it, they want the west (specifically the US) to stop dictating how they should run their countries and want a united islamic "nation" to stand a chance aginst the spread of christianity. Actually, I can't blame them much for wanting this, seeing how the US tramples human rights and such themselves, thus losing moral highground. Nothing the US promote except perhaps personal freedom, make it more legitimate than a "caliphate". Personally I do not fear Al Qaida nor OBL nor the formation of a unified islam nation in the middle east. What the result of them succeeding would be is highly speculative, but seeing how the US developed after uniting into what they are now, it does not seem like such a bad plan. We are going to have the united EU in Europe, the united nations of Asia and Oceania, the United North and South Americas and a United Islamic something. So what? A united voice for the islamic nations might be better than the mess it is currently.

Well, even though you put the smiley on there, no. I'm saying the wingnuts like Ken Starr and Richard Mellon Scaife (the bankroller) and Rush Limbaugh (the mouthpiece) and the Republican led Congress (the enablers) have a lot more responsibility than has ever been laid at their feet. And if I ever have the chance to tell them to their faces, I will.

Oh I know they hated Clinton. A LOT of people did. The military certainly did, thats for sure.

And he wants world rule where? Is the US an islamic nation? Is Germany an Islamic nation? France? UK? Any other nation not in the middle east? As far as I see it, they want the west (specifically the US) to stop dictating how they should run their countries and want a united islamic "nation" to stand a chance aginst the spread of christianity. Actually, I can't blame them much for wanting this, seeing how the US tramples human rights and such themselves, thus losing moral highground. Nothing the US promote except perhaps personal freedom, make it more legitimate than a "caliphate". Personally I do not fear Al Qaida nor OBL nor the formation of a unified islam nation in the middle east. What the result of them succeeding would be is highly speculative, but seeing how the US developed after uniting into what they are now, it does not seem like such a bad plan. We are going to have the united EU in Europe, the united nations of Asia and Oceania, the United North and South Americas and a United Islamic something. So what? A united voice for the islamic nations might be better than the mess it is currently.

I guess you missed this part....

Current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems “non-Islamic”

Is Germany an Islamic state? No, so they want to overthrow your government too.

Thanks for showing the left's usual conceit that only those whom are liberals are enlightened. I find your arguements to be very conceited. What's funny is that you and I may even agree on half or even more (!) issues (I'm a centrist, I don't like either party). Yet the way you automatically put down the right shows a remarkable lack of acceptance to other ideas. :(

Hey!! She is incapable of that, she is Canadian!! :rolleyes:

I guess you missed this part....

Current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems “non-Islamic”

Is Germany an Islamic state? No, so they want to overthrow your government too.
Germany is not a regime, it is a democracy and has never been islamic. I think they are referring to absolutist monarchy-like regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrein and the like which are ruled and "exploited" by an absolutist family at the top.

If you think OBL or Al Qaida could overthrow all governments in the world (and would even try), even those elected by the respective people, then no, I think this is definitely propaganda to spread fear, bare of any proof.

Germany is not a regime, it is a democracy and has never been islamic. I think they are referring to absolutist monarchy-like regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrein and the like which are ruled and "exploited" by an absolutist family at the top.

If you think OBL or Al Qaida could overthrow all governments in the world (and would even try), even those elected by the respective people, then no, I think this is definitely propaganda to spread fear, bare of any proof.

Regime is used here to mean "government." It is an all-encompassing word. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain etc ARE Islamic regimes. You just don't want to see the truth since it means that the big bad US might not be the real enemy afterall. You are blinded by your own hatred of a country that you have never even been to.

Well...it can be argued that they overthrew the Spanish government by blowing up a train. The former president would have won reelection if that incident had not happened. Europe is very weak when it comes to such things.

Regime is used here to mean "government." It is an all-encompassing word. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain etc ARE Islamic regimes. You just don't want to see the truth since it means that the big bad US might not be the real enemy afterall. You are blinded by your own hatred of a country that you have never even been to.

Well...it can be argued that they overthrew the Spanish government by blowing up a train. The former president would have won reelection if that incident had not happened. Europe is very weak when it comes to such things.
They bombed the train because Spain participated in the war against Iraq. Sorry, try again. That was to be expected and is also a reason why *gasp* France and Germany are not yet targets of such terrorist attacks.

We are just as open a country, which makes us very vulnerable to terrorism. But we do not support the spread of US "dictatorship" around the world, by military force most recently. However the anti-islamic stance of our judicative banning scarfs from being worn at schools is a little over the top and may bring us in the line of fire, which would be extremely bad.

If you think OBL or Al Qaida could overthrow all governments in the world (and would even try), even those elected by the respective people, then no, I think this is definitely propaganda to spread fear, bare of any proof.
The question is what they want. And they want the rule of Islam. Darb-al-Islam (house of Islam) and Darb-al-harb (house of wars): that is the way the extremists see the world, like the early muslim warriors who conquored Spain in the 9 th century and who stood before the gates of Vienna twice. They want to try it again. They see the world divided: On the one side the radical muslims and on the other the kafirs (the unfaitful) and their "allies" in the muslim world. And they want to erradicate them, so that darb-al-Islam should rule the world in the last days. It is an apocalptic scenario in what does fanatics believe in.
And that also explains their strategy: suicide bombings, plaines headed into scyscrapers - like into the tower of Babel - attacks on trains (Madrid) and in the future more attacks, possibly with WMDs. The threat is real. Wake up.

The question is what they want. And they want the rule of Islam. Darb-al-Islam (house of Islam) and Darb-al-harb (house of wars): that is the way the extremists see the world, like the early muslim warriors who conquored Spain in the 9 th century and who stood before the gates of Vienna twice. They want to try it again. They see the world divided: On the one side the radical muslims and on the other the kafirs (the unfaitful) and their "allies" in the muslim world. And they want to erradicate them, so that darb-al-Islam should rule the world in the last days. It is an apocalptic scenario in what does fanatics believe in.
And that also explains their strategy: suicide bombings, plaines headed into scyscrapers - like into the tower of Babel - attacks on trains (Madrid) and in the future more attacks, possibly with WMDs. The threat is real. Wake up.

Maybe you can talk some sense into your fellow countryman. He sees the US as the big enemy when he has Muslim terrorists in his own back yard who would kill him with as much pleasure as they would me. We are in the same boat and he refuses to row.

Also "regimes it deems non-islamic" does not automatically mean all governments in the world. Can you back up what you want to make me believe? Can you show me a list of democratic countries OBL wants to overthrow?

Here's one of his latest speeches, and nope, he does not hate Germany.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0415-05.htm

Not once does he claim that he wants world leadership, because that would be quite foolish of him.The free democracies already in existance cannot be overthrown with terrorism, as long as we do not allow our freedoms being replaced with security.

The question is what they want. And they want the rule of Islam. Darb-al-Islam (house of Islam) and Darb-al-harb (house of wars): that is the way the extremists see the world, like the early muslim warriors who conquored Spain in the 9 th century and who stood before the gates of Vienna twice. They want to try it again. They see the world divided: On the one side the radical muslims and on the other the kafirs (the unfaitful) and their "allies" in the muslim world. And they want to erradicate them, so that darb-al-Islam should rule the world in the last days. It is an apocalptic scenario in what does fanatics believe in.
And that also explains their strategy: suicide bombings, plaines headed into scyscrapers - like into the tower of Babel - attacks on trains (Madrid) and in the future more attacks, possibly with WMDs. The threat is real. Wake up.
More propaganda without proof. Carry on. Your opinion does not hold much value for me anyway. Being the US-lapdog you are, supporting each and every foreign policy of the US despite them being the aggressor and liar.

They bombed the train because Spain participated in the war against Iraq. Sorry, try again. That was to be expected and is also a reason why *gasp* France and Germany are not yet targets of such terrorist attacks.

We are just as open a country, which makes us very vulnerable to terrorism. But we do not support the spread of US "dictatorship" around the world, by military force most recently. However the anti-islamic stance of our judicative banning scarfs from being worn at schools is a little over the top and may bring us in the line of fire, which would be extremely bad.

And it worked didn't it? Now they know that to get the Spanish to do what they want, all they have to do is blow up a train and the sheep will give in to their demands. Who would have thought that Europe would become so weak? Such is the way of socialist countries.

Also "regimes it deems non-islamic" does not automatically mean all governments in the world. Can you back up what you want to make me believe? Can you show me a list of democratic countries OBL wants to overthrow?

Here's one of his latest speeches, and nope, he does not hate Germany.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0415-05.htm

Not once does he claim that he wants world leadership, because that would be quite foolish of him.The free democracies already in existance cannot be overthrown with terrorism, as long as we do not allow our freedoms being replaced with security.

It is funny that you linked this....because the European countries declined his offer. You believe what you want to. When Germany is hit maybe you will come to your senses. Of course the US will be there to help as always.

And it worked didn't it? Now they know that to get the Spanish to do what they want, all they have to do is blow up a train and the sheep will give in to their demands. Who would have thought that Europe would become so weak? Such is the way of socialist countries.
Not weak. Just realistic and not blinded by fear spreading and warmongering propaganda. You have not yet shown me any conclusive proof of any of your claims. Why do you continue to fail backing up what you say "will happen"? I know why. Because it is pulled out of your ass lacking any base, just like the war on Iraq and the "war on terror" in general. I don't buy any of this stuff.

The terrorist attack in Spain was a one time thing for now, I am sure. Unless Spain give them another reason to commit such things like attacking a sovereign islam country although there is no basis for it, I would not be surprised if Spain is not an "enemy" for them anymore right now.

Not weak. Just realistic and not blinded by fear spreading and warmongering propaganda. You have not yet shown me any conclusive proof of any of your claims. Why do you continue to fail backing up what you say "will happen"? I know why. Because it is pulled out of your ass lacking any base, just like the war on Iraq and the "war on terror" in general. I don't buy any of this stuff.

The terrorist attack in Spain was a one time thing for now, I am sure. Unless Spain give them another reason to commit such things like attacking a sovereign islam country although there is no basis for it, I would not be surprised if Spain is not an "enemy" for them anymore right now.

Wow....you really are blind. I will leave you to your blindness. Germany has troops in Afganistan so that makes you a target. Get ready....it will come one day to your land. What is the best way to defeat an enemy? Divide it up and defeat it in pieces. That you cannot see that this is what is happening, then there is no longer any use in trying to show you what is indeed happening.

I would not be surprised if Spain is not an "enemy" for them anymore right now.
Though al-Zawahiri, the deputy of Bin Laden esplicitly named France and Germany as enemies of Al-Quaida. There is no neutrality in this conflict. The attack is an attack on free and open society. It is an attack against freedom and all free nation. Even Turkey was attacked and Marocco. The threat is real and if one think to stay neutral in that he is in an illusion.

It is funny that you linked this....because the European countries declined his offer. You believe what you want to. When Germany is hit maybe you will come to your senses. Of course the US will be there to help as always.
Sure. We cannot "submit to terrorist demands". Do you expect anything else under the scrutiny of the public eye? Germany and France had no reason to acknowledge this "peace treaty". We were not members of the aggressive alliance, unlike some other European countries. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened, had our governments agreed to this. If OBL had attacked Europe with terrorism afterwards, then he would have shown that he is not trustworthy and just another liar. Now we cannot find out what would have happened since this "offer" was rejected - at least in public. I'd not be surprised if there is more to this than the public gets to see.

Wow....you really are blind. I will leave you to your blindness. Germany has troops in Afganistan so that makes you a target. Get ready....it will come one day to your land. What is the best way to defeat an enemy? Divide it up and defeat it in pieces. That you cannot see that this is what is happening, then there is no longer any use in trying to show you what is indeed happening.
*yawns* I am shivering in fear, cowering before thee almighty propaganda spewing god and will succumb to thy wishes. Anyhting else? No? Thanks. Please spare me the bleeding heart claims that this and that is going to happen. It is speculation, no basis for anything.

Our troops in Afghanistan are there to stabilize the country after the US made a mess of it. They arent an occupation force and if it was my decision, we would not have troops there. Alas, we have obligations to follow due to being members of the UN and NATO.

Though al-Zawahiri, the deputy of Bin Laden esplicitly named France and Germany as enemies of Al-Quaida. There is no neutrality in this conflict. The attack is an attack on free and open society. It is an attack against freedom and all free nation. Even Turkey was attacked and Marocco. The threat is real and if one think to stay neutral in that he is in an illusion.
Got proof? Maybe he also said why he thinks that way?

They bombed the train because Spain participated in the war against Iraq. Sorry, try again. That was to be expected and is also a reason why *gasp* France and Germany are not yet targets of such terrorist attacks.
You are wrong, France IS a target for terrorism right now. There are French hostages in Iraq, prisoners of muslim terrorists. Why is Indonesia a target? What have they done to "make themselves a target"?

I spell that H I P O C R I S Y!![/QUOTE]

No, you misspell that. It's "hypocrisy"

Our troops in Afghanistan are there to stabilize the country after the US made a mess of it. They arent an occupation force and if it was my decision, we would not have troops there. Alas, we have obligations to follow due to being members of the UN and NATO.
Afghanistan is a mess since the Soviets invaded it in 1979. That is the country who destroyed Afghanistan and made a mess of it. That is the historic truth.
And yes: Germany has alliance obligations and it fulfills it. And it is good that way. And at least our government is much more reasonable than you are.
But that has to be the case. Governments need to have more oversight. The reason why we are a Federal Republic and not a direct-democracy is clearly that it is better to have representatives deciding about thinks who are really looking insight the issues than the masses - who don´t have as much knowledge at best and who contain a bunch of stupid people at worst.
Ther stupidity of many was just shown last Sunday as you very well know. Therefore it is good to have representatives making the decisions and not the masses.

You are wrong, France IS a target for terrorism right now. There are French hostages in Iraq, prisoners of muslim terrorists. Why is Indonesia a target? What have they done to "make themselves a target"?

Give it up. He only sees one enemy and that is the US. He has no real knowledge of the US, has never been here, but he is typical of so many who base their opinions on what others tell them or what they read in their favorite paper or web site. A narrow range of knowledge makes for a narrow mind.

Several observations:

*) Bush is being condemned internationally for deposing a brutal dictator. Saddam Hussein isn't being especially demonised for being a brutal dictator, nor are the Left being faulted for supporting him for decades.

*) Indeed, it appears that most people, especially in Europe, are not only convinced that Iraq was never associated with the Left but that instead he was a puppet of teh US government/CIA that "got out of control". There are people who even insist that all his Warsaw-Pact weapons "came from teh US"...

*) Terrorism is working, at least in Europe, and if that Iraqi woman is released from prison with the Americans as well. Likewise the random murder of civilians has proven to be a very effective tactic, not only in Iraq but in lots of other places, from Madrid to the Phillipines.

I'd summise from this that Bush is making a mistake with tactics, not because he's a brutal tyrant but decidedly because he is not. By calling on support from the international community, instead of ruthlessly crushing his weakest enemies and bullying those he can't crush, he appears to be "weak" inthe eyes of other nations and thus an easy target.

It appears the real, demonstrably brutal tactics of regimes like in mainland China are superior in effectiveness. The PRC has already annexed a sovereign nation, trampled on the rights promised to a former Crown colony and has designs on two others (Taiwan and Nepal, respectively), yet because they are unreasonably bellicose they are deferred to by the UN and world opinion.

Thus my question:

Given this state of affairs, is it inevitable that brutality will trump civil and human rights? Is democracy essentially doomed, in favour of the sort of managerial revolution that Burnham envisioned? Do the creeping powers of the unelected European Union and UN bureaucracy embody the synthesis of such an inevitable development?

Give it up. He only sees one enemy and that is the US. He has no real knowledge of the US, has never been here, but he is typical of so many who base their opinions on what others tell them or what they read in their favorite paper or web site. A narrow range of knowledge makes for a narrow mind.

Ah, sort of like the way Americans are. I see.

You are wrong, France IS a target for terrorism right now. There are French hostages in Iraq, prisoners of muslim terrorists. Why is Indonesia a target? What have they done to "make themselves a target"?
You could also add why a Swiss and German tourists group was specifically targeted years ago while they were visiting a temple in Luxor,Egypt? What did they do wrong to become a target. Or the attack on a German tourists group in Tunesia in 2002 or the attack on mainly Australian tourists in Bali, Indonesia. We are all threatened. And there is no neutrality in this conflict. We are all potential targets.

Afghanistan is a mess since the Soviets invaded it in 1979. That is the country who destroyed Afghanistan and made a mess of it. That is the historic truth.
And yes: Germany has alliance obligations and it fulfills it. And it is good that way. And at least our government is much more reasonable than you are.
But that has to be the case. Governments need to have more oversight. The reason why we are a Federal Republic and not a direct-democracy is clearly that it is better to have representatives deciding about thinks who are really looking insight the issues than the masses - who don´t have as much knowledge at best and who contain a bunch of stupid people at worst.
Ther stupidity of many was just shown last Sunday as you very well know. Therefore it is good to have representatives making the decisions and not the masses.
I see. This is why these "representatives" got the overwhelming support of the electorate. Why there are mass protests in the street against the anti-social policies currently pressed through by the government. As I see it, we do not have a democracy. Representative maybe, but the politicians stopped caring for the majority of the people a long time ago. It is more resembling an authoritarian monarchy with the head of government being elected and the president being appointed. I do not trust the majority of our politians. They have not given me reason to trust them and give them my vote to represent my wishes and my needs, thus why they do not get my vote. I'd prefer you keep your insults of free-thinking people of this "democracy" to yourself and rather think about the reasons for this election outcome, than attacking the intellect of the voters. Otherwise you will likely wake up one day and ask yourself why we suddenly have a right-extreme government. Taking such developments more seriously would suit our politicians and you better than claiming that all of it is based on lack of knowledge or protest.

Ah, sort of like the way Americans are. I see.

And Canadians it would appear.

Hey!! She is incapable of that, she is Canadian!! :rolleyes:

Are you insinuating that there is no left or right in Canada?

Wow. I can't wait until Quebec leaves, the nation breaks up and the US adds 10-12 more states... ;)

Are you insinuating that there is no left or right in Canada?

Wow. I can't wait until Quebec leaves, the nation breaks up and the US adds 10-12 more states... ;)

Old news.. Quebec voted in 1995 not to leave. They don't even talk about it any more. If you think Canada will ever join the USA, you better wake yourself up, I think you're dreaming .. ;)

Are you insinuating that there is no left or right in Canada?

Wow. I can't wait until Quebec leaves, the nation breaks up and the US adds 10-12 more states... ;)

Oh no, there is DEFINETLY a liberal majority in Canada. A majority that SOME believe are incapable of being biased BECAUSE they are Canadian.

You could also add why a Swiss and German tourists group was specifically targeted years ago while they were visiting a temple in Luxor,Egypt? What did they do wrong to become a target. Or the attack on a German tourists group in Tunesia in 2002 or the attack on mainly Australian tourists in Bali, Indonesia. We are all threatened. And there is no neutrality in this conflict. We are all potential targets.
That is correct. We are all potential victims of terrorism and I do not support the use of it. Alas, you need to see the aim of these people. They do not kill innocents without trying to achieve something - I will not discuss the morality of what they want, that is subjective. But using humans from seemingly influential nations and showing how far they are willing to go to reach their goal, is possibly considered the last resort tactics with the greatest chance of success. Those who use terrorism appear to me to have no other way to get what they want, which may not always be for the worse. Alas, as usual the ends do not justify the means - this also applies to terrorists and especially so when it means the death of innocents. The question is however, what alternative do they have? If they are willing to sacrifice themselves or kill others, then it has got to be some desperate attempt to change something which they see as so threatening to themselves, that they employ such tactics.

Wow. I can't wait until Quebec leaves, the nation breaks up and the US adds 10-12 more states... ;)

Do you really want all those French Canadians here demanding that we all learn to speak French? ;)

...to say you're not biased is to say you haven't an opinion.

I think you're confusing 'bias' which is an unconscious tendency to see things in a certain light, and 'opinion', which is a conscious set of views openly acknowledged.

Otherwise you will likely wake up one day and ask yourself why we suddenly have a right-extreme government. Taking such developments more seriously would suit our politicians and you better than claiming that all of it is based on lack of knowledge or protest.
It is an East German problem. Wake up, man. Government is not taking care about everything. We are a free country. Freedom means to take self-responsibility.
It is not the governments job to create jobs. You have to learn that. I know that this is though since you lived from 1933-1989 under a dictatorship (or rather two dictatorship). A dictatorship has an advantage: People don´t need to think for themself. The party (either brown or red) is doing it for them. And it is providing or rather ordering people what to do.
There were such nasty developments in West Germany in the end of the 1960s as well - also with the NPD party gaining seats in 7 state parliaments. Though they failed in 1969 with 4,3% at the federal election and lost all seats in parliament in the elections afterwards. The West German democracy was strong enough to deal with that issue. No it is your turn to show that you develop into a strong democracy. We can give you money. Every year more than 150 billion is flowing into East Germany. But to become democrats is not a question of money but of thinking. And that you need to correct yourself. It is the responsibility of East Germany. In that respect I´ve to say that Platzeck did a better job than Milbradt. He stood up for what he believed and he got the reward that hís party came out as the stongest.
So, probably not all of you have lost their brains yet.

Oh no, there is DEFINETLY a liberal majority in Canada. A majority that SOME believe are incapable of being biased BECAUSE they are Canadian.

I never said I didn't have bias.. I said I was not bias towards American elections in general. You have had Republican presidents to which I had no problem with. It is not a bias to believe a certain politician is dangerous. Which is the case for me in my opinion with Bush. I don't dislike him because he's a conservative, I dislike him because I believe he is a dangerous man that is a threat to international stability and security. I don't want some cowboy starting WWIII. That's not bias, that's just logic! I judged him on his actions and the things he says, not on his political affiliation.

I spell that H I P O C R I S Y!!

No, you misspell that. It's "hypocrisy"
I stand corrected on the spelling thanks.

Today Kofi Annan and GW addressed the UN. It became pretty obvious rather quick that many of Kofi Annan comments about "The rule of law" were pointed right at the USA. I watched it live on the CBC, I wonder if the Americans picked up on this not so subtle message.

The Address In Brief (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/09/21/kofi040921.html)

I also almost fell off my chair when Bush had the nerve to use the Universal Human Rights charter, us Canadians know a little bit about it, it was a Canadian who wrote it. The Americans don't even live by it. It's against the Universal Human Right Charter to have the death penalty, did any one tell Bush that before he tried to invoke it?

According to Bush, the world should be living by the laws set by US and not UN :p

Well....Al Qaeda has said that if the US would convert to Islam the attacks would stop. Their aim is to create a Muslim world. I for one do not want to be a Muslim. I do believe that if Gore had been President that he would have tried to appease them somehow.
Can you reference a source for this comment?

That is correct. We are all potential victims of terrorism and I do not support the use of it. Alas, you need to see the aim of these people. They do not kill innocents without trying to achieve something - I will not discuss the morality of what they want, that is subjective. But using humans from seemingly influential nations and showing how far they are willing to go to reach their goal, is possibly considered the last resort tactics with the greatest chance of success. Those who use terrorism appear to me to have no other way to get what they want, which may not always be for the worse. Alas, as usual the ends do not justify the means - this also applies to terrorists and especially so when it means the death of innocents. The question is however, what alternative do they have? If they are willing to sacrifice themselves or kill others, then it has got to be some desperate attempt to change something which they see as so threatening to themselves, that they employ such tactics.
Oh yes, the poor terrorists, they have no other way to kill. They are so oppressed that blowing up children is OK. I feel so sorry for them.

You don't live near any schools, do you?

I never said I didn't have bias.. I said I was not bias towards American elections in general. You have had Republican presidents to which I had no problem with. It is not a bias to believe a certain politician is dangerous. Which is the case for me in my opinion with Bush. I don't dislike him because he's a conservative, I dislike him because I believe he is a dangerous man that is a threat to international stability and security. I don't want some cowboy starting WWIII. That's not bias, that's just logic! I judged him on his actions and the things he says, not on his political affiliation.

I think you should look at post 44 of this thread on page three.....

I am unbiased.. I'm a Canadian. I have no stake in your election per se.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You see Bush as a danger to the world because he uses American power. I see Kerry as a danger because he is weak and will cause many more deaths in the long run. Democrats are funny, they allow the military to decline during their terms saying that it is too expensive to maintain such a large force. Then when the Republicans come back they have to spend far more to rebuild the military than it would have cost to maintain. An analogy....it is cheaper to maintain a car than it is to buy a new one. Kerry will not do the maintenance and the US and thus the "free" world will be weaker for it.

Can you reference a source for this comment?

Read back a few pages.....

That is correct. We are all potential victims of terrorism and I do not support the use of it. Alas, you need to see the aim of these people.
They are intolerant bastards. They are even worse than the RAF (Red Army fraction). The Federal Republic of Germany was able to destroy this terrorists group after a long fight.
The historic experience shows that giving up to terrorism makes it only stronger. The Federal Republic gave up to terrorists black-mail in 1975 regarding the hostage-taking of one politician. The result was that the released terrorists commited new atrocities. The autum of terror in 1977 showed the nature of the terrorists. The government didn´t give up that time and prevailed in the long-term.
After September 11 I don´t have any doubt about the nature of those terrorists. They need to be fought against and eliminated. There is no alternative. But we also need to change the Middle East, get rid of its dictatorships and we need to try to solve the problems of the region. And that is what the US is trying to do. It is a matter of decades not years. But if we don´t give up it is possible. Europe was full of dictators a few years ago. Today it is full of democracy. The though stance of the US against the USSR made that possible. The Soviet Union and its economy went dipshit due to the pressure of the arms-race and reformers took over and the Soviet Empire collapsed.
I also prefer the attempt to do it through pressure. But there can be situation when force is necessary. If Iran continues its nuclear program such a situation can emerge. We can´t rule out the use of force as a last resort.

No, thats what OBL said....if the US would convert to Islam, the attacks would stop. At first the attacks were meant to drive the US out of Saudi Arabia. We moved out of Saudi Arabia...then the demands changed. You should read up about the "Muslim Brotherhood" because THATS what has influenced OBL and his followers.

http://www.ummah.org.uk/ikhwan/

A huge tree of "sub-goals" branches from these main objectives which are derived from the Quran and the tradition of the prophet (pbuh) [3,4]:

1- Building the Muslim individual: brother or sister with a strong body, high manners, cultured thought, ability to earn, strong faith, correct worship, conscious of time, of benefit to others, organized, and self-struggling character [3].
2- Building the Muslim family: choosing a good wife (husband), educating children Islamicaly, and inviting other families.
3- Building the Muslim society (thru building individuals and families) and addressing the problems of the society realistically.
4- Building the Muslim state.
5- Building the Khilafa (basically a shape of unity between the Islamic states).
6- Mastering the world with Islam.
On the same page you referenced, right at the bottom:

Important Disclaimer : The maintainer of this page is not a member of Al-Ikhwan patry and does not approve or agree with everything they say. This page is there for the soul perpose of answering the questions you always had and never knew who to ask.

This page has no political perpose of any kind and no connection what so ever to any organization or institution.

The person who posted this cannot even spell. This is an offical site?

The person who posted this cannot even spell. This is an offical site?

No, but the Islamic brotherhood is the foundation of the formation of Al Qaeda. There position and aims are well documented.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I meant (which I thought was obvious, guess not) that I don't have a democrat .vs republican bias because I am a Canadian. What America decides to do within their own borders I have no real opinion as I don't really care. When you step outside of your borders and break international law it becomes the business of the whole world. That's not a bias, that is fact!

I never said I didn't have bias.. I said I was not bias towards American elections in general. You have had Republican presidents to which I had no problem with. It is not a bias to believe a certain politician is dangerous. Which is the case for me in my opinion with Bush. I don't dislike him because he's a conservative, I dislike him because I believe he is a dangerous man that is a threat to international stability and security. I don't want some cowboy starting WWIII. That's not bias, that's just logic! I judged him on his actions and the things he says, not on his political affiliation.
WWIII has already started. It started years ago. And the people who started it don't wear cowboy hats, they wear kaffiyehs and turbans.

As a side note, why do you consider "cowboy" a derogatory term?

As a side note, why do you consider "cowboy" a derogatory term?

The term cowboy usually refers to a person who is reckless and does things some times that are dangerous and without thought. A risk taker if you will.

I meant (which I thought was obvious, guess not) that I don't have a democrat .vs republican bias because I am a Canadian. What America decides to do within their own borders I have no real opinion as I don't really care. When you step outside of your borders and break international law it becomes the business of the whole world. That's not a bias, that is fact!

How many resolutions does the UN have to pass before just ONE of them is enforced? How many were passed telling Iraq to cooperate? The UN is a funny thing. They make all these resolutions but then complain if anyone tries to enforce them. They had to be dragged into the Balkans and their "peacekeepers" helped the Serbs to kill Bosnians. Why you continue to cling to this notion that the UN is some sort of "law maker" is beyond me.

So you don't care who wins the US election because it does not affect you per se.....yet you are so pro kerry it is not funny. You have a bias toward Kerry because he embodies what you think is right. I have a bias toward Bush because I see kerry as an opportunist and a weak man politically who will further weaken the US in the face of terrorists.

The term cowboy usually refers to a person who is reckless and does things some times that are dangerous and without thought. A risk taker if you will.
Risk takers, yes. Where does the "without thought" come in? Cowboys built a civilization out of a virtually barren, sometimes inhospitable region. That takes thought; it cannot be done "without thought." Why "dangerous"? Is it because they sometimes used deadly force to defend themselves from someone who would take their life?

Oh yes, the poor terrorists, they have no other way to kill. They are so oppressed that blowing up children is OK. I feel so sorry for them.

You don't live near any schools, do you?
Another propaganda machine. Welcome, please stand in line and wait for your turn. As I already said, I do not support it, but instead of carelessly condemning it without looking at the cause for it, saying terrorists are all evil and must be killed is no different than they themselves.

How many resolutions does the UN have to pass before just ONE of them is enforced?

Then by your own logic using the UN for your argument you would then have to agree that the USA broke international law by not abiding by those same rules and regulations under the UN Charter. You can't have it both ways.

So you don't care who wins the US election because it does not affect you per se.....yet you are so pro kerry it is not funny. You have a bias toward Kerry because he embodies what you think is right. I have a bias toward Bush because I see kerry as an opportunist and a weak man politically who will further weaken the US in the face of terrorists.

No, not exactly. I only support Kerry because I believe he would be far less dangerous to the world. If not for that, I wouldn't care. That is the only reason I support Kerry and hope he wins. Personally I think American politicians in general are a joke. It's like watching a circus. It's entertainment..

Then by your own logic using the UN for your argument you would then have to agree that the USA broke international law by not abiding my those same rules and regulations under the UN Charter. You can't have it both ways.

How many resolutions were passed that stated that there would be consequences for non-compliance? Do you see why the UN is a joke now? Like a parent who tells a child that they better clean their room or they will get a spanking. The child refuses and the parent does not follow through with the threat. THAT is what the UN has become. They passed resolution after resolution telling Iraq to clean it's room and Iraq refused. So the US went in to enforce the resolution. NOW it is seen as an illegal act? Please. Since you have so much faith in the UN maybe you can jump on the "UN Charter" argument, but the resolutions authorize force if necessary and allows ANY member nation to take such force. That the US is the ONLY country with the capability and the desire makes us an easy target.

No, not exactly. I only support Kerry because I believe he would be far less dangerous to the world. If not for that, I wouldn't care. That is the only reason I support Kerry and hope he wins. Personally I think American politicians in general are a joke. It's like watching a circus. It's entertainment..

I think kerry will be more dangerous because he will weaken the US and thus the 'free" world. Weakness invites all sorts of problems.

Wow...I agree with you on our politics. America is unique when it comes to politics, although I have yet to see any fistfights on the floor of the Senate like we do in some countries. ;)

How many resolutions were passed that stated that there would be consequences for non-compliance?

....And how many resolutions were past giving the USA the right to invade Iraq and depose their leader? None, that's how many.

So, therefore the only conclusion one can come to is Iraq and the USA both broke international law. One does not negate the other.

No, but the Islamic brotherhood is the foundation of the formation of Al Qaeda. There position and aims are well documented.
And? The aim of the US Government is to control the Middle East and all her resources (read Bremer's Order 39) including the world's largest deposits of oil.

The US wants to enforce "their" freedoms upon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Project for the New American Century spells out the US imperialistic endeavours. No wonder that Islamic people are rising up against this assault on "their" lands.

....And how many resolutions were past giving the USA the right to invade Iraq and depose their leader? None, that's how many.

So, therefore the only conclusion one can come to is Iraq and the USA both broke international law. One does not negate the other.

How does one invade another country without taking out the leadership?

And? The aim of the US Government is to control the Middle East and all her resources (read Bremer's Order 39) including the world's largest deposits of oil.

The US wants to enforce "their" freedoms upon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Project for the New American Century spells out the US imperialistic endeavours. No wonder that Islamic people are rising up against this assault on "their" lands.

Wow...you equate the US with those who behead civilians and tape it?

How does one invade another country without taking out the leadership?

Well that is quite besides the point. It doesn't negate the fact that the USA broke international law. If using the UN as your argument, then it was quite clearly illegal for them to invade at all. The UN has even said so. As has the majority of the world.

Oh, countries can go to war and sign cease fires and peace treaties without deposing the leader of the country.

Well that is quite besides the point. It doesn't negate the fact that the USA broke international law. If using the UN as your argument, then it was quite clearly illegal for them to invade at all. The UN has even said so. As has the majority of the world.

Oh, countries can go to war and sign cease fires and peace treaties without deposing the leader of the country.

Well...if the UN passes a resolution calling for action...and a member state takes said action. Then how is it a violation of international law? Had we left Sadam in power...would he have changed?

Originally Posted by Stephistan
Well that is quite besides the point. It doesn't negate the fact that the USA broke international law. If using the UN as your argument, then it was quite clearly illegal for them to invade at all. The UN has even said so. As has the majority of the world

Stephistan, so is your point that the world community should ignore thier international organizations or act on their resolutions? Also, I am curious when you think a soveriegn nation can declare war?

Stephistan, so is your point that the world community should ignore thier international organizations or act on their resolutions? Also, I am curious when you think a soveriegn nation can declare war?

She has me confused as well on this one....UN or no UN? Which is it going to be?

....And how many resolutions were past giving the USA the right to invade Iraq and depose their leader? None, that's how many.

So, therefore the only conclusion one can come to is Iraq and the USA both broke international law. One does not negate the other.
The USA doesn't need a "resolution" from the UN to defend herself.

Stephistan, so is your point that the world community should ignore thier international organizations or act on their resolutions? Also, I am curious when you think a soveriegn nation can declare war?

No, I do subscribe to international law and the UN Charter. As I live in a country who is a signatory member of said international laws. Now, while there is little doubt that Saddam played cat and mouse with UN inspectors and thus defied UN resolutions he was in violation. Thus it was up to the same international body to decide what remedy should be taken. Not an illegal unilateral action such as the United States took.

I believe a sovereign nation can declare war on another sovereign nation under the rules laid out by the UN Charter, in self defense, there was clearly no threat to America by Iraq. There never was. Saddam had not done any thing to any one since the first Gulf war. A resolution was passed and he was dealt with. He posed no threat and it was not the right as also being a signatory member of the UN Charter to act unilaterally against the will of the world as the United States did.

Well...if the UN passes a resolution calling for action...and a member state takes said action. Then how is it a violation of international law? Had we left Sadam in power...would he have changed?
I have heard of no resolution calling for action in Irak. Can you show me one?

The USA doesn't need a "resolution" from the UN to defend herself.

I still fail to see how Iraq was attacking the US.

No, I do subscribe to international law and the UN Charter. As I live in a country who is a signatory member of said international laws. Now, while there is little doubt that Saddam played cat and mouse with UN inspectors and thus defied UN resolutions he was in violation. Thus it was up to the same international body to decide what remedy should be taken. Not an illegal unilateral action such as the United States took.

Did the resolutions not say that action in the form of "grave consequences" would result from non-compliance? What do you think "grave consequences" are?

I believe a sovereign nation can declare war on another sovereign nation under the rules laid out by the UN Charter, in self defense, there was clearly no threat to America by Iraq. There never was. Saddam had not done any thing to any one since the first Gulf war. A resolution was passed and he was dealt with. He posed no threat and it was not the right as also being a signatory member of the UN Charter to act unilaterally against the will of the world as the United States did.

Regardless...the US went in to enforce UN resolutions...period. NOW you want to make it something else. :rolleyes:

I still fail to see how Iraq was attacking the US.
That's OK, you don't need to see it, because it's not your call to make. It is not the UN's call to make. It is the US government's decision to make, and they saw a threat. No further "justification" is needed. America is a sovereign country and is therefore the sole and final arbiter on matters of her own defense.

Did the resolutions not say that action in the form of "grave consequences" would result from non-compliance? What do you think "grave consequences" are?

The same resolution also said that the UN security council will be the judge of what "grave consequeces" mean in this instance.

The UN resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

Regardless...the US went in to enforce UN resolutions...period. NOW you want to make it something else. :rolleyes:

That's what the government is saying. It doesn't make it so. Either way, it was not their place to unilaterally decide how to enforce the UN resolution. The US violated the internationnal law they are claiming to protect.

Did the resolutions not say that action in the form of "grave consequences" would result from non-compliance? What do you think "grave consequences" are?

It was not up to the United States to unilaterally decide what those consequences should be. The United States is a signatory member of the UN, thus is bound by it's rules. It breached them thus the invasion of Iraq was under international law illegal. There is no if and what about it.

Oh, btw is was "serious" not "grave"

(Res 1441)

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Note the bold!

That's OK, you don't need to see it, because it's not your call to make. It is not the UN's call to make. It is the US government's decision to make, and they saw a threat. No further "justification" is needed. America is a sovereign country and is therefore the sole and final arbiter on matters of her own defense.

As I recall it, they did a 'preemptive' attack on the chance that maybe, in the future, Iraq might sell WMD (who might or might not exist...) to terrorist organisation who then could possibly attack the US homesoil.

Now with that much 'if' I could put Paris in a small wine bottle.

But in essence, you're right: It's not my call to make.

It is, however, my duty to question the motives, justifications and precedent the US administration has caused.

As I recall it, they did a 'preemptive' attack on the chance that maybe, in the future, Iraq might sell WMD (who might or might not exist...) to terrorist organisation who then could possibly attack the US homesoil.

Now with that much 'if' I could put Paris in a small wine bottle.

But in essence, you're right: It's not my call to make.

It is, however, my duty to question the motives, justifications and precedent the US administration has caused.

At least you're honest enough to admit that it's not your decision to make. Do you agree that any sovereign nation is the sole and final arbiter of matters regarding its own defense? Or must they seek permission and justification from some other entity first?

It is, however, my duty to question the motives, justifications and precedent the US administration has caused.

Duty to who? No, it is just another example of Canadians who disagree with the US on any number of things. That Saddam had been violating international law since 1980 is never an issue now is it? But let the US rectify the situation and then the big mean US violated international law. Ya know what? The US violated international law by going into Bosnia AND Kosovo. Any complaints there? Nope. The US DRAGGED the UN AND the european powers in there to stop the killings of muslims by the Serbs. Any complaints? Nope.

I suggest you guys do some real soul searching and try to rationalize this puzzle. Why does one obvious violation of international law not get a peep of protest...but another has the world up in arms? The US is always an easy target. Is it any wonder that more and more Americans are calling for us to get out of the UN and quit helping others out? Africa starving or killing itself...who cares? Ethnic cleansing in the balkans? Let the europeans take care of it. The US does far more good in the world than many of you would ever accept, but that goes unnoted. Thats ok, we are waking up and that will bring about a change that you might like even less.

And I thought you are talking about the US there for a second.

oh them too, i'm sure. anyone could find an excuse.

At least you're honest enough to admit that it's not your decision to make. Do you agree that any sovereign nation is the sole and final arbiter of matters regarding its own defense? Or must they seek permission and justification from some other entity first?
If the use of this sovereignty encroaches on the sovereignty and freedom of another nation, then yes, it is not the sole matter of the "defending" nation anymore. Not to mention that the US did not "defend" themselves from Iraq but aggressively, with extreme prejudice forced a war on that country, in defiance of international law. Now deal with the indeed *grave* consequences.

If the use of this sovereignty encroaches on the sovereignty and freedom of another nation, then yes, it is not the sole matter of the "defending" nation anymore. Not to mention that the US did not "defend" themselves from Iraq but aggressively, with extreme prejudice forced a war on that country, in defiance of international law. Now deal with the indeed *grave* consequences.
You are confused. Are you saying a nation must get permission from the enemy against which it is defending itself?

The US will deal with the consequences, which are not as "grave" as you wish them to be. Then what?

If the use of this sovereignty encroaches on the sovereignty and freedom of another nation, then yes, it is not the sole matter of the "defending" nation anymore. Not to mention that the US did not "defend" themselves from Iraq but aggressively, with extreme prejudice forced a war on that country, in defiance of international law. Now deal with the indeed *grave* consequences.

That Germany, Canada and any number of liberal nations would sit on the sidelines and not stop violations of international law in the Balkans (ethnic cleansing) or in Africa (ditto) is all fine and well. Afterall, noone HAS to intervene in areas outside their own borders and that is fine. However, to then complain when someone DOES intervene and decry said action as a violation of international law is another matter.

Then again, who enforces international law? Is there some sort of police force that regulates these things? Is there a court that has any real authority going to charge the US with such and then lock us up? Is the UN going to call for some resolution against the US? If they do who is going to enforce it? I am curious to see what you think will happen.

its not so much that bush is incompitent stupid and hatefull as he is a few hundred years to late. if he had been born about the same time where people still thought slavery was acceptable he would have fit in perfectly

seriously he should read things before he tries to use them against people, can any one say WMD reports

At least you're honest enough to admit that it's not your decision to make. Do you agree that any sovereign nation is the sole and final arbiter of matters regarding its own defense? Or must they seek permission and justification from some other entity first?

Well, according to UN charter, wich the US has signed, there are some clearly defined justification to go to war. So, yes, I'd like to see some justification to some other entity for war, according to the law you are supposed to, you know, follow as a government.

But I agree that a country is the sole arbiter on matters regarding its own defense. They will, however have to be accountable to internationnal laws for their actions. So I disagree on the final part of your statement.

Otherwise, we go back to the days of "might make right" where your military might decides if you are justified or not. That is why there is war crimes tribunals and international laws.

And I enter a rant here but I see the US government as being extremely hypocrit when it comes to internationnal laws an treaties they sign. They do their darned to enforce them on one side but when it comes to breaking them they do it without an afterthought. I will cite the Steel tariff on belgian steel as an example. So excuse me when I see the US actions as my concern even if I'm not an American.

And I am of the school of thought that once you sign a deal, it's not to back out of it as soon as it is no longer agreeable for your side.

That Germany, Canada and any number of liberal nations would sit on the sidelines and not stop violations of international law in the Balkans (ethnic cleansing) or in Africa (ditto) is all fine and well. Afterall, noone HAS to intervene in areas outside their own borders and that is fine. However, to then complain when someone DOES intervene and decry said action as a violation of international law is another matter.

Then again, who enforces international law? Is there some sort of police force that regulates these things? Is there a court that has any real authority going to charge the US with such and then lock us up? Is the UN going to call for some resolution against the US? If they do who is going to enforce it? I am curious to see what you think will happen.
It is exactly this kind of arrogance and carelessnes with the power you have as the last remaining superpower, which will cost you this "precious" seat of power. You can mock the world and other countries until you reach the critical limit, which will eventually happen, should you continue abusing your "superpower" status the way you do. Your "invincible empire" is not as tough and invincible as you think it is. 9/11 showed the world this. Continue mocking all people of the world and exclaiming just how unenforcable anything against the atrocities the US commit is, and you will see just how weak your country truly is.

Wow....so he calls for the UN to take action in Sudan and other areas where human rights are an issue and you guys complain about the freaking death penalty?

I always find it funny that in places where they behead people and film it there is no protest, but a murderer is executed as humanely as possible there is plenty of protest. The world certainly is a funny place.

How about the UN and Annan getting rich from the "oil for food program?" How is that for the rule of law?
The situation in Sudan is awful, but it doesn't make the death penalty a non-issue.

It's pointless to protest against beheadings in Saudia Arabia for a couple of reasons. Firstly, agreement is almost universal that this is wrong. Second, no Saudis are here so they wouldn't hear us. On the other hand, there are plenty of Americans here.

That was wrong, but I don't see why you are bringing it in to this thread.

You seem to be coming from a pro-death penalty stance here. How exactly are you a Libertarian? I know you're a "card-carrying member of the party", but which of their beliefs do you share? On this forum almosts all of your arguments sound like they come from a Republican's point of view.

I will cite the Steel tariff on belgian steel as an example. So excuse me when I see the US actions as my concern even if I'm not an American.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/344349.stm

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200011/20/eng20001120_55653.html

Yeah, steel dumping is a problem everywhere isn't it?

I HOPE the UN passes some resolution against the US some day and see how they enforce it.

The UN proclaims itself as some great organization that is there to help the people of the world. Yet where are they when it comes to things like Rwanda?

If it was up to the UN ALL the people of Bosnia and Kosovo would be a memory now.
I'm sure that the UN has passed resolutions against the USA in the past. You seem to think that the only way to enforce anything is through military means. Are you some kind of neo-conservative?

The UN is only as powerful as its member states allow it to be. It's an organisation that at least tries to promote peace - surely for that reason it deserves our support.

Didn't the ethnic cleansing campaign begin after the US attacked?

It is exactly this kind of arrogance and carelessnes with the power you have as the last remaining superpower, which will cost you this "precious" seat of power. You can mock the world and other countries until you reach the critical limit, which will eventually happen, should you continue abusing your "superpower" status the way you do. Your "invincible empire" is not as tough and invincible as you think it is. 9/11 showed the world this. Continue mocking all people of the world and exclaiming just how unenforcable anything against the atrocities the US commit is, and you will see just how weak your country truly is.

See....this is the response I expected. No rationality at all.

Didn't the ethnic cleansing campaign begin after the US attacked?

No...and Dutch peacekeepers HELPED the Serbs carry out their massacre. Look into it and see for yourself.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/10/srebrenica.dutch/

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp458.htm

http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/sre021119.html

The UN has far more blood on its hands than some would like to believe.

Yes and the illuminati and the freemasons have a hand in it too. lets not forget the skull and bones society which both Bush and Kerry are members of.
That's a crackpot conspiracy theory. The PNAC assertion is actually based in reality.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

I'm sure that the UN has passed resolutions against the USA in the past. You seem to think that the only way to enforce anything is through military means. Are you some kind of neo-conservative?

Maybe the UN has, but the US would just veto it if they did. I am no neo-con but I do love to play the devils advocate.

That's a crackpot conspiracy theory. The PNAC assertion is actually based in reality.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

It is no more a crackpot theory than the PNAC is. A handful of men controlling the world.....:rolleyes:

See....this is the response I expected. No rationality at all.
Yes, a completely unresponsive rant. I don't think he even tried to rationally answer any of the questions you asked. Oh well, maybe somebody else will try. ;)

Other than having military in West Germany, what did the US do? I do not blame the US for the problems we have now, but I disagree that the US "fixed" anything here.
I agree with Biff Pileon in this debate. The US did help to rebuild Germany. Do you know that the first post-1945 Deutschmarks were minted in America?

I'm sorry that you have a lot of problems, but that is only to be expected given your situation.

I also don't think you could call the US military presence an "occupation". It's not like they are governing your country. Also, when in the past 150 years has Germany not been capitalist? It was one of the most anti-socialist countries in Europe up until 1911, and especially under Bismark before that.

Yes, a completely unresponsive rant. I don't think he even tried to rationally answer any of the questions you asked. Oh well, maybe somebody else will try. ;)

No they won't. They will decry the US as the big evil empire and everything we do is wrong and an affront to "sensible" people everywhere. It all comes down to one thing in their eyes........

US = bad

Rest of the world = good

It is no more a crackpot theory than the PNAC is. A handful of men controlling the world
They're not controlling the world, just the Bush Administration. ;)

Check out their Statement of Principles. They've got Rummy, Wolfy, Cheney and others in there.

I'm sorry that you have a lot of problems, but that is only to be expected given your situation..
The problems in his region are more caused by the Soviets who occupied that part of the country till 1994 and established a socialists regime against the will of the people - as it was shown in 1953 (17 June) which ended under the gun shots and tanks of the Soviets and in 1989.
The damage of this socialists experiments is still causing problems - thogh East Germany is in a better situation than Poland for example. But due to the fact that people only compare it with the west it is still not satisfactory for many - especially the 20% unemployed.
Given the fact that there are not even American troops stationed in East Germany his comment don´t even make sense anyway. It was after all the US who supported the reunification from the begining on in contrast to the other three victory powers.

You seem to be coming from a pro-death penalty stance here. How exactly are you a Libertarian? I know you're a "card-carrying member of the party", but which of their beliefs do you share? On this forum almosts all of your arguments sound like they come from a Republican's point of view.

Well, not everyone agrees with every stance of their party do they? I just happen to agree with the death penalty if the people of a state want it. Some states do, some don't. It is their choice.

Terrorists? They should be given life sentences and fed pork sandwiches every day and upon death be buried in the skin of a pig. No going to paradise smelling of pork now is there? ;)

They're not controlling the world, just the Bush Administration. ;)

Check out their Statement of Principles. They've got Rummy, Wolfy, Cheney and others in there.

They are just a think tank. They are open about their beliefs and they really have no power. Some people see conspiracy everywhere they look.

The problems in his region are more caused by the Soviets who occupied that part of the country till 1994 and established a socialists regime against the will of the people - as it was shown in 1953 (17 June) which ended under the gun shots and tanks of the Soviets and in 1989.
The damage of this socialists experiments is still causing problems - thogh East Germany is in a better situation than Poland for example. But due to the fact that people only compare it with the west it is still not satisfactory for many - especially the 20% unemployed.
Given the fact that there are not even American troops stationed in East Germany his comment don´t even make sense anyway. It was after all the US who supported the reunification from the begining on in contrast to the other three victory powers.

Now THAT answers quite a few questions. Maybe he would like to go back to what East Germany was before where he could not speak out against his own government. Of course someone will find a way to blame the US for that as well.

A: Kofi Annan has no place to even talk about rule of law while mass genocide is being committed on a daily basis within his own country and he does nothing about it.

B: No governing body, international or not, has the right to tell a nation how it can and can't defend itself.

Fuck the UN. If they hate America so much, they can move out of their AMERICAN-built building and get the fuck out of AMERICAN soil.
Sounds like you're angry and misinformed.

A: What can Kofi Annan do about it? He's not a dictator with armies of either diplomats or soldiers at his disposal. See point B.

B: The UN is not, nor does it aspire to be a world government. They accept that they have no right to tell anyone that they can't defend themselves. That's why there is an exception in the Security Charter. It says that if your country is being attacked you don't need to consult with them to defend yourself. They supported the defensive attack on Afghanistan in 2001.
However, the war in Iraq was not defensive. It wasn't even related to the War Against Terrorism.

The UN doesn't hate America. Neither does France, Gerany, Russia or anyone else who disagreed with the invasion. How does this disagreement amount to hatred?

Now THAT answers quite a few questions. Maybe he would like to go back to what East Germany was before where he could not speak out against his own government. Of course someone will find a way to blame the US for that as well.
You can find a way for that actually, though no one can really blame it. It had to keep a contract with the Soviets and gave over Saxony and Thuringa which was mainly occupied by the US over to the Soviets in exchange for West Berlin. Though you defended that very well in 1948/49 during the blocade.

I also don't think you could call the US military presence an "occupation". It's not like they are governing your country. Also, when in the past 150 years has Germany not been capitalist? It was one of the most anti-socialist countries in Europe up until 1911, and especially under Bismark before that.

Bismarck made Germany one of the most socialist nations of the time by enacting the world's first social security and pension programs.

35..!?

Then you are a little one yet.

Your "chronological" age is not what I was refering to. If you were truly "of age" you'd probably have realized that.

You are a leftist, as my nose is the arbiter of your (or anyone's) "leftistness".

May your children learn from their parents.

As to what they may learn, that we may have a difference of opinion about.
If you are so mature, maybe you could possibly make a post without attacking someone or displaying your arrogant American supremacism.

If you were so mature you would know what "leftist" means.

You sir, are a clown.

You can find a way for that actually, though no one can really blame it. It had to keep a contract with the Soviets and gave over Saxony and Thuringa which was mainly occupied by the US over to the Soviets in exchange for West Berlin. Though you defended that very well in 1948/49 during the blocade.

Now I see where he is coming from and that makes his anti-US statements all the more puzzling. We do get a bad rap from a lot of people who are incredibly ill-informed about the US and it's people. Thats ok, it makes for lively discussions. The vitriol shown by some who feel the US has violated international law, while giving other nations who do so routinely a free pass is quite telling as well as it shows their true feelings are not about international law but the US. I do wish we would withdraw from the UN and be done with it once and for all.

WAR BEING LOST, PULLOUT DEMANDED IMMEDIATELY
December 8, 1941 - UPI

London - The World Workers Socialist Party (WWSP) is demanding that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill pull all Commonwealth troops out of North Africa after they were dealt a severe blow by German units under the command of General Erwin Rommel. The defeat came a day after the Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and with German troops at the gates of Moscow. "This just shows that Mr. Churchill's war was a misguided blunder.", said Tass Izvestia, a spokeman for the WWSP. "Does he not see what the whole world knows?", asked Mr. Izvestia, who continued, "This mess illustrates Mr. Churchill's mishandling of the war and his lack of an exit strategy." Mr. Churchill responded today, saying he would bow to world opinion and cease the ill-advised military actions against Nazi Germany.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."

- Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)
Sound familiar?

Sound familiar?

Absolutely....it works in every country. Even France. ;) Wasn't the last German election decided because of anti-American rhetoric?

Thats true....if France or Germany is attacked and a number of their citizens are killed would they be as vocal against the US? How about Canada? They consider themselves to be so benevolent. Would they be if they were attacked? it is always easy to place blame when you are not directly involved, but once you are, it is a different matter altogether.
Well, a huge terrorist attack didn't make the Spanish people more warlike. Perhaps the same reaction would occur in France.

Ummm... judge the relative level of bias of Stephistan vs. MKULTRA.
Steph is just biased against Bush. MKULTRA is just plain crazy!

Absolutely....it works in every country. Even France. ;) Wasn't the last German election decided because of anti-American rhetoric?
Not anti-American, but pro-peace. It seems you interchange both freely, which is a logical fallacy.

Well, a huge terrorist attack didn't make the Spanish people more warlike. Perhaps the same reaction would occur in France.
Yes, there are different ways to respond to a terrorist attack. Spain showed one way, which could VERY WELL be followed by the French should they be attacked. After all, France bent over and took it from the Nazis, didn't they? Same with Spain and the terrorists.

That Germany, Canada and any number of liberal nations would sit on the sidelines and not stop violations of international law in the Balkans (ethnic cleansing) or in Africa (ditto) is all fine and well. Afterall, noone HAS to intervene in areas outside their own borders and that is fine. However, to then complain when someone DOES intervene and decry said action as a violation of international law is another matter.

Faulty logic: not the reason stated for the invasion.

Then again, who enforces international law?

International organisations and their members.

Is there some sort of police force that regulates these things?

Some: NATO, UN peacekeepers

Is there a court that has any real authority going to charge the US with such and then lock us up?

Despite strong objection from the US, there is now. Ever since it's officialisation, the US has coerced many countries with trade sanction to sign treaties stating they will not pursue americans in this court.

Is the UN going to call for some resolution against the US? If they do who is going to enforce it?

The UN might but it will be hopeless since any enforcement of these resolution invariably goes through the Security Council where the US has the power of veto. In this, I agree with the Americans that say the UN is innefective: I can't sanction one of the veto carrying members (and Israel for some reason).

There, answered your question with as much objectivity I could muster. I doubt you will listen to my opinion, though. After all, I'm just a pinko leftist Canadian ;)

Absolutely....it works in every country. Even France. ;) Wasn't the last German election decided because of anti-American rhetoric?
Dude what is you fixation on France? You seem to mention them in every debate on international matters. And yes, of course it would work in France, that's wahat Hermann said. Though I can't think of any recent examples of such government behaviour in France.

It's true that Schroder scraped by in the election due to his "firm anti-war stand". I don't think it's the same as anti-Americanism. And even if it was, it's not what was described by Goering. Schroder didn't tell Germany that it was under attack, he didn't call anyone unpatriotic, and he didn't try to launch a war. The Republican government of USA, on the other hand, did all of these things.

Actually, Bush didn't even need to tell Americans that they were under attack - merely that they were under threat. They jumped to his call!

Not anti-American, but pro-peace. It seems you interchange both freely, which is a logical fallacy.
We tried the so-called "pro-peace" way for a decade. It only resulted in the threat becoming more intense and more lethal. It is a FAILED policy.

It was not up to the United States to unilaterally decide what those consequences should be. The United States is a signatory member of the UN, thus is bound by it's rules. It breached them thus the invasion of Iraq was under international law illegal. There is no if and what about it.

Oh, btw is was "serious" not "grave"

(Res 1441)

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Note the bold!

Yes....the UN would have Saddam still in power. Koffi Annan would still be getting his cut from the oil for food program and France, Germany and Russia would still be selling weapons to Saddam as well. The French are really pissed because they lost their sweet dealings with Saddam. So of course they wanted to keep the whole thing bottlenecked. They even told Saddam they would protect him within the security council. Hardly objective huh?

The blood of those found in the 263 mass graves recently discovered in Iraq is on the hands of Koffi Annan and all the other leaders who supported Saddam against the US. That you would take the side of those who decry the US is not surprising. Anti-US feelings usually come from inadequate knowledge of the "big picture." Leaving Saddam in power was NOT an option. There is ample evidence that he was just waiting for the UN sanctions to be lifted so he could begin a renewed WMD program. France had been pushing for the sanctions to be lifted....why? So they could sell Saddam what he needed to build his program up. The risk that he would then turn the products of said program over to a terrorist group for use against the US was too great to allow it to happen. So the US acted to prevent this from happening and everyone gets their panties in a wad over it. No surprise really....

Well, a huge terrorist attack didn't make the Spanish people more warlike. Perhaps the same reaction would occur in France.

The Spanish surrendered. Now they can be made to do anything with just the THREAT of another bombing. Would the French surrender? They are good at that...

Dude what is you fixation on France? You seem to mention them in every debate on international matters. And yes, of course it would work in France, that's wahat Hermann said. Though I can't think of any recent examples of such government behaviour in France.

It's true that Schroder scraped by in the election due to his "firm anti-war stand". I don't think it's the same as anti-Americanism. And even if it was, it's not what was described by Goering. Schroder didn't tell Germany that it was under attack, he didn't call anyone unpatriotic, and he didn't try to launch a war. The Republican government of USA, on the other hand, did all of these things.

Actually, Bush didn't even need to tell Americans that they were under attack - merely that they were under threat. They jumped to his call!
I can't believe you think 9/11 wasn't a real attack, or that it didn't start a war.

The Spanish surrendered. Now they can be made to do anything with just the THREAT of another bombing. Would the French surrender? They are good at that...

That's not quite what happened there, Biff. The Spanish people were mostly anti-war. Their government backed the US despite the popular opinion. When the election came about, they elected the other guy who promised to bring their soldiers home.

Yes, the bombing have probably weighted on the election, but that government was going out anyway, if I recall correctly.

That's not what I call surrendered.

Dude what is you fixation on France?

The French fancy themselves the leader of Europe and they actively worked against the US in the UN general assembly. Their hand was in Iraq and they supported Saddam and even told him not to worry, the US would never invade and go against the security council where they had veto power.

I can't believe you think 9/11 wasn't a real attack, or that it didn't start a war.
Wich Iraq had nothing to do with.

That's not quite what happened there, Biff. The Spanish people were mostly anti-war. Their government backed the US despite the popular opinion. When the election came about, they elected the other guy who promised to bring their soldiers home.

Yes, the bombing have probably weighted on the election, but that government was going out anyway, if I recall correctly.

That's not what I call surrendered.

No? The Spanish have opened themselves up for more attacks by not standing up to the terrorists. Like sheep, they will do whatever their new shepherd (Al Qaeda) wants them to do out of fear of being bombed again. It was a very bad precedent.

No? The Spanish have opened themselves up for more attacks by not standing up to the terrorists. Like sheep, they will do whatever their new shepherd (Al Qaeda) wants them to do out of fear of being bombed again. It was a very bad precedent.
I still don't see the surrender... Is Spain a Islamist country all of a sudden? I mean, that's what you stated as the goal of the terrorist is it not?

I still don't see the surrender... Is Spain a Islamist country all of a sudden? I mean, that's what you stated as the goal of the terrorist is it not?

No, it is not yet....but the goal of the Islamic Brotherhood is a muslim world. That they were able to influence the election in Spain has emboldened them to try it again elsewhere. I suspect we will have another attack here in the US around Nov. 2nd.

No? The Spanish have opened themselves up for more attacks by not standing up to the terrorists. Like sheep, they will do whatever their new shepherd (Al Qaeda) wants them to do out of fear of being bombed again. It was a very bad precedent.
Fear spreading and Propaganda... again. Unless you have proof, stop the blabber.