NationStates Jolt Archive

WL, why do you bother, CH is a loon, He has repeatedly shown himself to ignore facts.

CH just continues to rant the same thing over and over, as if this, in some way, will give verification to his BS.

But you are correct. Posting facts will result in nothing but CH blatantly ignoring those facts and continuing his rant.

Places that are not in American (read Bushevik) interests and thus are ignored by the United States anyways (read Sudan, Saudi Arabia, etc etc.)

And please, feel free to pull America out of the UN and eject it from New York. The UN can simply eject America from its governing body and without the Veto addiction America currently has as Permanent Security Council Member a lot more would get done.

I guess its a crime to get involved in places you have an interest? How does this make the US bad in your myopic eyes? If this is the case, it speaks volumes about the rest of the countries that would never put their neck-or dollars (yes dollars) on the line to right any wrongs.

Your UN will never get anything "done" and you'll continue to waffle and fret and try to take the spotlight off of your own severe shortcomings by poking at the US with your very small stick.

I guess its a crime to get involved in places you have an interest? How does this make the US bad in your myopic eyes? If this is the case, it speaks volumes about the rest of the countries that would never put their neck-or dollars (yes dollars) on the line to right any wrongs.

Your UN will never get anything "done" and you'll continue to waffle and fret and try to take the spotlight off of your own severe shortcomings by poking at the US with your very small stick.

France has gotten involved in Sudan without any clear financial incentives, but you'd just call that "shooting civilians."

On the other hand America under Republican presidencies have never gotten involved in a conflict that did not involve trying to exploit its resources (natural or human) or did not involve trying to contain a perceived threat (Communism, Fundamentalist Islam, etc.) Few if any of America's involvements are altruistic, in fact most of them always come with an ulterior motive.

You can dance and cackle all you like about how the UN will never get anything done, but the fact is with US slapping down vetoes left and right the United Nations is getting dragged down by it. Losing the excess weight wouldn't hurt the U.N. one bit.

Your statement that the rest of the world is too envious of the United States to get anything done is pure bullshit. It's right up there with "They Hate Our Freedom" as one of the most jingoistic and arrogant condescension ever crafted by a Bushevik.

France has gotten involved in Sudan without any clear financial incentives, but you'd just call that "shooting civilians."
?? Just how naive are you? France and Russia were the two countries that wouldn't call what's going on in Darfur geneocide. They're allowing the ICC to "prosecute" the people, but in order to do that they need the help of the local gov. in Khartoum which is "unofficially" backing the Janjaweed. Bull-fucking-shit they don't have any monetary interest in Sudan.

?? Just how naive are you? France and Russia were the two countries that wouldn't call what's going on in Darfur geneocide. They're allowing the ICC to "prosecute" the people, but in order to do that they need the help of the local gov. in Khartoum which is "unofficially" backing the Janjaweed. Bull-fucking-shit they don't have any monetary interest in Sudan.

Got any stories or links to confirm this?

Got any stories or links to confirm this?
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/022005/02122005/1664733

Russia: According to a November report by Amnesty International, the Sudanese government imported four MiG fighter jets from Russia in December 2003 and January 2004. Khartoum was expected to have imported a total of 12 new Russian MiGs by the end of last year.

These purchases coincided with the use of MiGs against civilians in Darfur. When I met with refugees from Darfur in September, several told me their villages had been attacked by MiGs in late 2003 and early last year. Human-rights groups also have cited the use of MiGs in raids on Darfur villages.

The Russians, too, have ties to Sudan's oil industry. Last summer, as the crisis in Darfur continued to worsen, a Russian company inked a deal to build an oil pipeline in Sudan.

France: The Amnesty report found that the French have sold large quantities of bombs, grenades, ammo, and other military items to Sudan in recent years.

The French corporation Total holds the rights to an oil concession in southern Sudan.

And just in case you bitch about that being a right-wing source, here are a few others.

http://www.thisweekghana.com/ThisWeek/Commentary.ablorh.darfur.083004.htm

The French stand on Iraq was lauded in Africa. Indeed, 53 African nations voted to support her position against the US. The AU looks lost now and helpless as it seeks a world-power to champion its cause in Darfur.

Would that world power be France? Her colonial history in Africa seems to suggest otherwise. .

As some suggest, France’s stance on both Iraq and Sudan may have been prompted by self-interest, not altruism as she would like the world to believe.

An article in Forbes Magazine of July 2003, titled "The French Connection," said “For their political support (of Saddam) French companies were rewarded with contracts to sell $3.5 billion worth of goods to Baghdad under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program, making it Iraq's largest Western trading partner from 1996 to 2001.”

The concessions in Sudan may even be bigger. Total Elf, the giant French oil company, owns extraction rights on a very significant discovery of natural gas in the Red Sea.

African rebels in both South and Darfur regions are fighting over share of resources with the Sudan government. Amnesty International claimed in 2000 that the people “living in the oil fields (in the south) had been targeted for torture, rape, displacement, and any abuse you can think of” to disposes them of the natural resources of the land. The Janjaweed militias may be doing the same job in the West.

As always, the French government has different response when it comes to atrocities in Africa. In Rwanda, in the name of mercy, she helped the Hutu killers escape justice. In the Ivory Coast she would interfere with government forces attempt to quell a mutiny; also in the name of mercy.



When two captured French journalists were recently threatened with beheadings by terrorists, the French government went into frenzied action contacting every government and faction of influence in the Middle East to help save them. The intensity of the effort to save these French citizens was remarkable but notably absent in the case of the Sudanese Africans dying in Darfur.

Likewise, France will do her best not to hurt the chances of Total Elf in Sudan. She will make sure that Total Elf’s hold on concessions in Sudan is not jeopardized by any “foolish” attempt to act aggressively against Sudan. The relationship between the French government and the largest French oil company is that tight.

The most sensational corruption case in France within the past century has ties to both Total Elf and the French government. In this case it was revealed that Total Elf officials had embezzled some $350 mil, between 1989 and 1993, from funds created by the oil company to bribe Third World leaders. Further investigation revealed that a bulk of this slush fund was also used to bribe high French government officials.

Ohh, China's got quite a few investments in Sudan as well.

"China, India, Malaysia and some European countries are dramatically expanding business ties with Sudan, taking advantage of U.S. sanctions that bar American companies from operating here, local officials and foreign diplomats say. Companies from those countries — some of which are at least partially state-owned — are investing billions of dollars and working closely with the Khartoum government with little concern about its role in recent mass killings in Sudan's Darfur region, Western diplomats say. "They couldn't care less how many people are dying in Darfur — that's not how they conduct their policies," one senior diplomat said. "Everyone has an agenda here. Sudan has oil, gold and a major port on the Red Sea."

These companies also are replacing old American technology sold before the sanctions, which were imposed unilaterally by Washington in stages during the 1990s to punish Khartoum for its support of terrorism and human rights abuses, the diplomats say. "Most of the cotton-gin machinery here is American, but they can't get spare parts. So Chinese companies provide inferior — but nevertheless suitable — replacement parts," another senior Western diplomat said.

"They are also starting to replace those machines. They are signing contracts for $20 million — and it's not only the sales, but the subsequent business of supplying parts for the machines," he said. "So the Chinese are beginning to take this piece of the market away from the Americans."

Chinese companies also are building oil refineries, pipelines and production facilities. Officials in Beijing have boasted that they helped Sudan change from an importer to exporter of oil. U.S. companies traditionally had been among the most active foreign investors in Sudan. Their fortunes, however, worsened when relations between the two countries began to deteriorate after the 1991 Gulf war, during which a fundamentalist Islamic government in Khartoum supported Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.



http://platform.blogs.com/passionofthepresent/2004/08/why_not_impose_.html

France and China are also Permanent Security Council members along with the United States. What's the lesson here?

The Permanent Membership for the Security Council is a very bad idea.

Well, since I think the Un as a whole is frigging stupid, you'll get no beef with me there. Of course, putting some of the worst human rights violators on the HRC is also really fucking stupid.

CH just continues to rant the same thing over and over, as if this, in some way, will give verification to his BS.

But you are correct. Posting facts will result in nothing but CH blatantly ignoring those facts and continuing his rant.
By siding with Isanyonehome, do you also consider Iraqis a bunch of "camel jockeys", and do you share his hatred for them and their religion?

Up until this point what exactly has been your contribution to this thread? Exactly what "facts" have you brought forward? Oh, thats right, this was your first post on this thread and it just happened to be a personal attack on me and has nothing to do with the discussion. I am deeply honoured. Thanks for playing.

By siding with Isanyonehome, do you also consider Iraqis a bunch of "camel jockeys", and do you share his hatred for them and their religion?

Up until this point what exactly has been your contribution to this thread? Exactly what "facts" have you brought forward? Oh, thats right, this was your first post on this thread and it just happened to be a personal attack on me and has nothing to do with the discussion. I am deeply honoured. Thanks for playing.

I've brought sources to my posts, and you ignore them. So it's not worth discussing.

The American public is not distracted. They voted decisively. Dont try to make your biased and uninformed opinion sound like its a fact-you'll only fool your own liberal, American bashing types. And their small screechy voices have become so tire some.
We like the idea that terrorists are being chased wherever they hide. No one is or was panicking that there would be a terrosist attack. No one was duped, my friend. Exept, perhaps you. And its an odd set of values when you feel Bush is somehow "dehumanizing homosexuals" and yet you have an underlying animosity towards Israel.I guess these are consistant with that intellectual european aura.
Your opinions are cock-eyed and irrelevant. Tell the mirror.


People like you make me cry....

People like you make me cry....

Why? He's right.

Why? He's right.

Two times ive cried tonight........and in same thread :( :(

I've brought sources to my posts, and you ignore them. So it's not worth discussing.
For the most part, I do answer your posts. I just don't have time to post 50 a day like yourself. And for the most part, while I tend to disagree with most of your ideology, I do respect the fact that you rarely indulge in personal attacks.

WL did a pretty good job of replying to this.
Regardless, I was replying to you. What are your thoughts?


Here's (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm) what Mr Blix reported to the UN in Jan. 2003:
Okay great, you read Blix's report, but all you see is the negatives? How about the positives in that report?

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

How did Blix end his report? In a positive manner, denoting the accomplishments made by the inspections team:

UNMOVIC’s capability

Mr President, I must not conclude this “update” without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.

In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else. Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training programme continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca. All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.

In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to “freeze” large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.
Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.

Mr. President,

We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.

I would call this effort progressive. As an American, what would be your feelings be like, if the UN was in your country, with unfettered access to any and all of your military installations, and their goal was to destroy or neutralize ALL of your WMD (nuclear, chemical and conventional), and their manufacturing facilities? Imagine if you can that the only rockets you would be allowed to possess could not travel any further than a few hundred miles? Hard to imagine huh? That was the goal for Iraq.

Having spewed all that out, and after considering Blix's report, what did Blix have to say about Bush and Blair's actions?

Blix says Bush, Blair insincere salesmen on Iraq

The former chief U.N. weapons inspector Sunday likened the use of intelligence by the leaders of Britain and the United States to justify war in Iraq to the tactics of insincere salesmen.

Hans Blix -- who pleaded for more time to search Iraq for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons before a U.S.-led invasion in March -- said the West had a right to expect more from their leaders.

"The intention was to dramatize it (the intelligence) just as the vendors of some merchandise are trying to exaggerate the importance of what they have," Blix told BBC television.

Nearly 10 months after the war none of the biological or chemical weapons cited by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the reason for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq have been found.

"From politicians, our leaders in the Western world, I think we expect more than that, a bit more sincerity," Blix said.

Who paid the price for the actions of these "insincere salesmen"? The people of Iraq that is who. Tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children have lost their sight, or their limbs, or their lives, and for what? And don't give me that "freedom" and "democracy" crap, because the fact is, that those people do not want you there in "their" country.

Has the invasion of Iraq helped in the cause to win the "war on terrorism"? IMHO, it has made it much worse. The majority of people in the US now say, that Iraq was not worth the price, and that Iraq was a "mistake". I tend to agree with them.

Two times ive cried tonight........and in same thread :( :(


at least you're a consistant crying whiner.

I really don't care whether you think I am a loon or not, that is irrelevant to this thread. However, what is relevant is your hypocrisy, which you clearly demonstrate within this thread.

I am apologizing for that. It was uncalled for so I am saying sorry. Edit: for the "loon" part that is


You started this thread as though you have some deep concern for the people of Iraq, and that Bush had come to save these people from the terrible scourge of Saddam:

People are people. And yes I do have concern for them and for all the genocides going on in the world because no one is willing to do anything meaningfull about it.


Much later in the thread, you display your true emotions regarding these people:

After reading this, it appears that not only do you not care about these people, but you actually hate them, and their religion.

Oh please. Every ethnicity has a derogatory term and shouldnt be read into too deeply. People have called me "raghead" on occasion without any effect on me, I dont see whats the big deal about camel jockey? Doesnt seem like a big insult to me.

I do not hate them, why should I? And I dont know much about Islam, but none of the Muslims I know practice the extreme form that is practiced in Saudi Arabia.

It is my belief that oil is more of a curse to the ME than a real benefit. Because of the oil revenue, the ME was not forced to develop like the rest of the world(infrastructure, education, a varied industrial base). The oil revenue also allowed many governments to not reform themselves.

This is a bad situation. If oil were to be replaced too quickly, there will be a lot of people without work. Some of these people might be willing to become terrorists or suicide bombers because they have no other way of taking care of their family. Or they might start to believe the words of the more radical elements who are claiming that it is all the West's fault. There is already plenty of anti western thought in that part of the world, think how much more there will be if more people ad no way to make a living.

Regardless, I was replying to you. What are your thoughts?

Okay great, you read Blix's report, but all you see is the negatives? How about the positives in that report?
~snip~

The negatives, in my opinion, outweigh the positives. As I have repeatedly said, this was to be Saddam's last chance. Even Blix said the weapons found and the level of cooperation indicted that Saddam's play at the end appeared to be insincere.

How did Blix end his report? In a positive manner, denoting the accomplishments made by the inspections team:

[i]UNMOVIC’s capability
~snip~

That's quite a good review of the level of aid and cooperation Blix was getting from other countries, but we're interested in Saddam's level of cooperation. You've still not addressed the prohibited munitions and lack of accounting for the missing materials. I think that is paramount when examining the decision to go to war.

I would call this effort progressive. As an American, what would be your feelings be like, if the UN was in your country, with unfettered access to any and all of your military installations, and their goal was to destroy or neutralize ALL of your WMD (nuclear, chemical and conventional), and their manufacturing facilities? Imagine if you can that the only rockets you would be allowed to possess could not travel any further than a few hundred miles? Hard to imagine huh? That was the goal for Iraq.

Having spewed all that out, and after considering Blix's report, what did Blix have to say about Bush and Blair's actions?

Blix says Bush, Blair insincere salesmen on Iraq
~snip~

This appears to be from an article and not from blix's accounting to the UN. Please link to the source.

Who paid the price for the actions of these "insincere salesmen"? The people of Iraq that is who. Tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children have lost their sight, or their limbs, or their lives, and for what? And don't give me that "freedom" and "democracy" crap, because the fact is, that those people do not want you there in "their" country.

Has the invasion of Iraq helped in the cause to win the "war on terrorism"? IMHO, it has made it much worse. The majority of people in the US now say, that Iraq was not worth the price, and that Iraq was a "mistake". I tend to agree with them.

The plurality (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html) of Iraquis polled do want us there:

US was right to invade = 48%
US was wrong to invade = 39%
No opinion = 13%

I submit that the invasion of Iraq had aided in the war on terrorism for three reasons:

1) Countries who would otherwise stand back and watch are taking an active role in combatting terrorists in their countries.

2) Countries who have been state sponsors of terrorism are re-thinking that policy. (Lybia, Syria, Sudan)

3) Many foreign combatants have entered Iraq to fight the 'Infidels' making Iraq the 'front line' in the war on terror. This point has arguments on both sides, but it seems clear to me that making the enemy come to you has distinct advantages.

The negatives, in my opinion, outweigh the positives. As I have repeatedly said, this was to be Saddam's last chance. Even Blix said the weapons found and the level of cooperation indicted that Saddam's play at the end appeared to be insincere.
Where did Blix suggest that the level of co-operation was "insincere"?

From the same Blix report:

I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

I believe that it is significant and relative to point out, that during the above noted years, the US not only removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations, but established diplomatic relations with Iraq which endured throughout the same years, and they also supplied (along with many other countries) the chemicals and technology to deliver these weapons upon Iranian forces.

Now George Bush wants to appear saintly while cleaning up the mess that his father and Reagan's created in Iraq?


This appears to be from an article and not from blix's accounting to the UN. Please link to the source.
Blix says Bush, Blair insincere salesmen on Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/iraq-040210-pla-daily03.htm)

The plurality (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html) of Iraquis polled do want us there:

US was right to invade = 48%
US was wrong to invade = 39%
No opinion = 13%
From the same article that you linked, Iraqis do NOT want the US there:

As many Iraqis say the war "humiliated" Iraq as say it "liberated" the country; more oppose than support the presence of coalition forces there now (although most also say they should stay for the time being); and relatively few express confidence in those forces, in the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, or in the Iraqi Governing Council.

Presence of coalition forces: AllArabs Kurds

Support 39% 30% 82%
Oppose 51 60 12

I submit that the invasion of Iraq had aided in the war on terrorism for three reasons:

1) Countries who would otherwise stand back and watch are taking an active role in combatting terrorists in their countries.

2) Countries who have been state sponsors of terrorism are re-thinking that policy. (Lybia, Syria, Sudan)

3) Many foreign combatants have entered Iraq to fight the 'Infidels' making Iraq the 'front line' in the war on terror. This point has arguments on both sides, but it seems clear to me that making the enemy come to you has distinct advantages.

Your fellow Americans disagree in big numbers? (http://www.pfavoterfund.com/1151-15.1151-070204A.html)

By 51 percent to 14 percent, Americans believe the threat of terrorism has
increased rather than decreased since the invasion of Iraq, according to an
NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday. Thirty-four percent
said the threat remained the same.

The impression that the Iraq war has hindered the fight against terrorism
has some military concurrence. An Army War College study argued in January
that the Bush administration had mishandled the war on terrorism by invading
Iraq, which the study called a "a war-of-choice distraction from the war of
necessity against al Qaeda."

Terrorism risk has increased since Gulf 2 (http://www.globalcontinuity.com/article/articleview/10271/1/30/)

Drr John Chipman, Director of the IISS, said, "The May 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, the gathering of foreign jihadists in Iraq, and the November 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia and Turkey confirmed this expectation.The Madrid bombings in March 2004 reinforced the perception that al-Qaeda had fully reconstituted, set its sights firmly on the US and its closest Western allies in Europe and established a new and effective modus operandi that increasingly exploited local affiliates."

If the "invasion of Iraq has aided in the war on terrorism", why does the US Homeland Security alert remain on Elevated?

Elevated Condition (Yellow). An Elevated Condition is declared when there is a significant risk of terrorist attacks.

It really is a shame that the invasion of Iraq has fueled the recruitment of terrorists. The invasion has definitely done more harm than good. :(

It really is a shame that the invasion of Iraq has fueled the recruitment of terrorists. The invasion has definitely done more harm than good. :(
It is far too early to say this. It'll be years, if not decades, before such a conclusive statement can be made.

The UN is obsolete and indecisive, racked in scandal, and weak. The United States, having been wounded as a direct result of the horrible policies of the Clinton years, has vowed never to let inertia rule its judgement again.

The war in Iraq was justified, no doubt about it.

Those of you who say things like "If the US wanted to help human rights, why is Darfur happening?"

Guess what? Saying that we shouldn't have annihilated Saddam just because we are not willing to involve ourselves in every humanitarian crisis around the world is like saying that one should not give money to a homeless man unless one is able and willing to give money to every homeless person in the city.

So what does it matter if we never found the WMD? By involving ourselves in Iraq, a move the pacifists and liberals fought every step of the way, in spite of better judgement, we removed a cruel despot, and undoubtedly saved the lives of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Do you seriously think the Iraqi people would want the invasion to have never occurred just because we never found any stockpiles of WMD? If you do, look at the Kurdish Prime Minister, the Kurd whose people Saddam gassed by the thousands just to test his insidious weapons of mass destruction? Just liberating the millions of Iraqi people from tyranny is worth the sacrifice, as is removing a dictator that would have become even more audacious and dangerous. And before you ask, YES. I would fight for my country in Iraq, North Korea, Iran, or any other place, on any battlefield, with all of my strength if I was two years older and was drafted. I would do so because I believe that we as Americans owe our country a profound debt, and our own sacrifice, even if it is in blood, is the best way to repay that debt.

*Whammy*

Guess what? Saying that we shouldn't have annihilated Saddam just because we are not willing to involve ourselves in every humanitarian crisis around the world is like saying that one should not give money to a homeless man unless one is able and willing to give money to every homeless person in the city.

This is a good analogy.

*Whammy*

No whammy.

If there was one thing drilled into my skull through my interactions with participants of two separate world wars and three 'police actions', is that there is nothing at all in this or any other other world which requires bloodshed to defend that is worthwhile. Not a flag, a nation, an ideology, a religion, race, language, leader or scrap of paper sitting inside a glass box.

No-one said anything about getting involved in every humanitarian cause going. If you're going to try dodging criticism for the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation by making lip-noises about humanitarianism, however, you're setting yourselves up for valid criticism on that front.

Own up to the fact that America's involvement in Iraq has virtually nothing to do with humanitarianism, and virtually everything to do with securing another country's resources for American consumption, and maybe you won't get figuratively slapped upside the head for blatant hipocricy.

Not that I'm expecting anyone to own up to anything. Go ahead and act as though somehow you're the aggrieved party in all this. Be my (unwanted) guest.

The UN is obsolete and indecisive, racked in scandal, and weak. The United States, having been wounded as a direct result of the horrible policies of the Clinton years, has vowed never to let inertia rule its judgement again.

The war in Iraq was justified, no doubt about it.
The mere fact that we are discussing it proves that there is a lot of doubt about it.

Go ahead and make blanket statements with no fact to support them if you will, but don't be surprised when your opinion is not even considered in a debate.

Also, it is funny how you seem to put the blame of 9-11 on Clinton's policies when Clinton warned Bush Jr. about OBL and Bush did nothing. Like the policies of Clinton had something to do with it. :rolleyes:

Also, it is funny how you seem to put the blame of 9-11 on Clinton's policies when Clinton warned Bush Jr. about OBL and Bush did nothing. Like the policies of Clinton had something to do with it. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I guess that why Berger had to steal all of those documents.

And what good is a vague warning that some terrorist group is planning to attack the US. I am sure that at any given point of time there mst be dozens of terrorist group that are in some planning to attack the US. Without detailed information what could either Bush or Clinton or anyone else have done? Stop all air traffic?

Also, it is funny how you seem to put the blame of 9-11 on Clinton's policies when Clinton warned Bush Jr. about OBL and Bush did nothing. Like the policies of Clinton had something to do with it. :rolleyes:
Clinton had three separate chances to terminate OBL and did nothing.

Clinton had three separate chances to terminate OBL and did nothing.

Bush has had four continuous years to terminate OBL and has managed to do nothing. I suppose America won't give up on blaming Clinton for everything until the next Democrat admin gets voted in.

It is far too early to say this. It'll be years, if not decades, before such a conclusive statement can be made.
10 years from now, it could be 10 times worse or 10 times better, but as of right now, THIS day, it IS worse.

Yeah, I guess that why Berger had to steal all of those documents.

And what good is a vague warning that some terrorist group is planning to attack the US. I am sure that at any given point of time there mst be dozens of terrorist group that are in some planning to attack the US. Without detailed information what could either Bush or Clinton or anyone else have done? Stop all air traffic?
Then why is it that Clinton is blamed for this?

Then why is it that Clinton is blamed for this?

Because he passed up on 3 chances to bring OBL into US custody. By chances I mean the respective govt were willing to turn him over(I am not positive about this, perhaps others can add some info). He chose not to for various political reasons. Though, I think he would have if he had suspected the amount of damage OBL would eventually do.

at least you're a consistant crying whiner.

Go play in the road?

Bush has had four continuous years to terminate OBL and has managed to do nothing. I suppose America won't give up on blaming Clinton for everything until the next Democrat admin gets voted in.

There is a bit of differance between hunting down someone hiding in a cave and being offered up that person on a silver platter by a foreign govt.

There is also the case where we lobbed a cruise missle at obl but he felt compelled to tell the Pakistinians about it and someone in their secret service snitched to OBL and he made his getaway(he has a lot of support in Pakistan). In all fairness though, thats got to be a tough call(deciding on whether or not to inform Pakistan before launching a missile into their country..wouldnt want to start a war or undermine Musharef)

Where did Blix suggest that the level of co-operation was "insincere"?

If you have to ask, I question that you actually read the report.

In this updating I am bound, however, to register some problems. Firstly, relating to two kinds of air operations.

While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change.

Another air operation problem – which was solved during our recent talks in Baghdad – concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours. This would have raised a safety problem. The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraq minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past.

I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.

On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites.

The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.

Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.

And:

While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current “unresolved disarmament issues” and “key remaining disarmament tasks” in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.

From the same Blix report:

I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

I believe that it is significant and relative to point out, that during the above noted years, the US not only removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations, but established diplomatic relations with Iraq which endured throughout the same years, and they also supplied (along with many other countries) the chemicals and technology to deliver these weapons upon Iranian forces.

Now George Bush wants to appear saintly while cleaning up the mess that his father and Reagan's created in Iraq?

This passage you quoted from his report lists some weapons that are not accounted for. You realize that 1441 required a full and complete accounting for existing and destroyed prohibited munitions!? We are talking about why Bush invaded Iraq, not trying to justify past relations with Iraq, right? As you yourself just stated, they were supplied by many other countries as well. This is a key point...pre-1991, many nations caried on good relations with Iraq. How is it that you then blame Bush the elder and Reagan solely for the mess???


Blix says Bush, Blair insincere salesmen on Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/iraq-040210-pla-daily03.htm)

Here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/cw.htm), Dr. David Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group talks about weapons moved to Syria before the invasion. This means they had weapons throughout the inspection process that they didn't declare. More violationos of the resolution.

From the same article that you linked, Iraqis do NOT want the US there:

As many Iraqis say the war "humiliated" Iraq as say it "liberated" the country; more oppose than support the presence of coalition forces there now (although most also say they should stay for the time being); and relatively few express confidence in those forces, in the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, or in the Iraqi Governing Council.

Presence of coalition forces: AllArabs Kurds

Support 39% 30% 82%
Oppose 51 60 12

We can both find polls to support our side of the argument, I was merely pointing that fact out. I think we can safely say that a great number of people around the world both support and oppose the action. I refuse to get into a "my side has more people on it than your side" argument. There are plenty of people on both sides.

Your fellow Americans disagree in big numbers? (http://www.pfavoterfund.com/1151-15.1151-070204A.html)

By 51 percent to 14 percent, Americans believe the threat of terrorism has
increased rather than decreased since the invasion of Iraq, according to an
NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday. Thirty-four percent
said the threat remained the same.

The impression that the Iraq war has hindered the fight against terrorism
has some military concurrence. An Army War College study argued in January
that the Bush administration had mishandled the war on terrorism by invading
Iraq, which the study called a "a war-of-choice distraction from the war of
necessity against al Qaeda."

So 48 percent of Americans think terrorism has decreased or remained the same since the invasion...I call that evenly split within the margin of error. Aren't statistics great?

Terrorism risk has increased since Gulf 2 (http://www.globalcontinuity.com/article/articleview/10271/1/30/)

Drr John Chipman, Director of the IISS, said, "The May 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, the gathering of foreign jihadists in Iraq, and the November 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia and Turkey confirmed this expectation.The Madrid bombings in March 2004 reinforced the perception that al-Qaeda had fully reconstituted, set its sights firmly on the US and its closest Western allies in Europe and established a new and effective modus operandi that increasingly exploited local affiliates."

If the "invasion of Iraq has aided in the war on terrorism", why does the US Homeland Security alert remain on Elevated?

Elevated Condition (Yellow). An Elevated Condition is declared when there is a significant risk of terrorist attacks.

It really is a shame that the invasion of Iraq has fueled the recruitment of terrorists. The invasion has definitely done more harm than good. :(

The American public is aware of terrorism now more than before. Elevated is the condition in the middle of the spectrum. They could have also called it Medium, or Average. It is a subjective scale, based on intelligence data and opinion. I repeat my previous assertion that we are facing terrorists on foreign soil, and they are coming to us....that is good. I also believe that Al Qaida and other organizations have and will continue to act as they have regardless of what we do, so the "fuled recruitment" argument is a false one. That is why it's important to have leaders who are willing to act before these terrorists strike us. Remember, the premise of the terrorists is "Death to the Infidel" - not "Let's bring them around to our way of thinking". They want you, me, Bush, Clinton, Blair, and every other non-muslim dead. Not converted to Islam, not subjugated under their rule...D-E-A-D. Period.

They want you, me, Bush, Clinton, Blair, and every other non-muslim dead. Not converted to Islam, not subjugated under their rule...D-E-A-D. Period.
Before I get around to replying to the rest of your post, I would like you to prove this assertion of yours.

I am not positive about this, perhaps others can add some infowhat sources do they have?
let me guess... the "Fair and Balaced" TVnetwork :D :D :D

Before I get around to replying to the rest of your post, I would like you to prove this assertion of yours.you are asking too mush to the Bushites...

Its a "feeling" they have...just like a "feeling" they had found WMD proof...or just like a "feeling" they had that Saddam did 9-11...or just like a "feeling" they had that Osama is all Clinton Fault...or just like a "feeling" they had that the world is behind us in the Iraq War...or just like a "feeling" they had that Bush was going to somehow lower Taxes...

what sources do they have?
let me guess... the "Fair and Balaced" TVnetwork :D :D :D

Or presumably a "completely non-partisan" ultra-conservative blog...

you are asking too mush to the Bushites...

Its a "feeling" they have...just like a "feeling" they had found WMD proof...or just like a "feeling" they had that Saddam did 9-11...or just like a "feeling" they had that Osama is all Clinton Fault...or just like a "feeling" they had that the world is behind us in the Iraq War...or just like a "feeling" they had that Bush was going to somehow lower Taxes...
Ignorance and intolerance fosters hatred. I have seen way too many posters on these boards who have expressed a desire to "nuke" the entire Middle East, which is sad to say the least.

Boobeeland made a comment and I would like to see him prove it. I don't think that that is asking too much. Perhaps they don't get asked often enough?

Would people please stop citing Clinton's incompetence as a reason to bash us anti-war types? I've never supported Clinton. Blame Democrats for backing him, sure, but not all of us are Democrats...

They want you, me, Bush, Clinton, Blair, and every other non-muslim dead. Not converted to Islam, not subjugated under their rule...D-E-A-D. Period.
Maybe so. Don't think for a moment that this is the view of more than a small minority of the Muslim world though.

What's interesting is how this has come about. The radicalising of fundamentalist Islam is a recent phenomenon, one that only came about in the '70s, I believe. Prior to that, any Muslim that contemplated murder on the basis of faith was an aberration.

[QUOTE=Freudotopia]The UN is obsolete and indecisive, racked in scandal, and weak. The United States, having been wounded as a direct result of the horrible policies of the Clinton years, has vowed never to let inertia rule its judgement again.

Well personally I think having the gut to go against the only superpowers proves that UN is not obsolete. Because during the cold war it was really hard for UN to act because they had to consider the will of the both superpowers. For example Un was not able to critizes the vietnam war or the war in afganistan. Also there could not take a firm stand for democracy during that time, but they are doing it today. Also UN just obeyed the will of USA then they became the only superpower, first war against Iraq and also said that the liberation of Kosovo was ok, even if NATO didn't have the aproval of the security counsel. But the second Iraq war proved that the UN could follow the will of people of the world instead of the will of the only superpower. That I think have really pissed of some Americans that don't want to have anybody object to their internationall politics and who want the UN to be USA's tool. Also this is just some of the things the UN is envolved in so there are atleast not totally useless.
http://www.un.org/peace/etimor/etimor.htm

http://www.unmikonline.org/

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unamsil/

http://www.monuc.org/Home.aspx?lang=en

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

http://www.un.org/issues/

what sources do they have?
let me guess... the "Fair and Balaced" TVnetwork :D :D :D

okay lets see what links I can dredge up.

This is about and attempt in afganistan.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

About Sudans offer to hand over bin laden
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

This should do for a start.

Before I get around to replying to the rest of your post, I would like you to prove this assertion of yours.

Just to clarify, I'm not speaking of all Muslims...just of the minority who perpetrate terrorism of further the cause of terrorism around the world. If you must be convinced...

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wtc01/alqaida.htm, specifically: "it declared the duty of every Muslim to kill Americans, civilian or military, wherever possible."

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/usa/Al_Queda.htm: The avowed goal of Al Qaeda is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." The underlying rationale is the overthrow of what it perceives as the corrupt and heretical regimes of the various Islamist states, and their replacement with regimes that are based on the rule of Shariah (Islamic law). .....Over the past five years (2001), the Al-Qaeda has evolved from being a regional threat to US troops in the Persian Gulf to a global threat to US as also other countries it perceives as being enemies of Islam

http://www.ghazali.net/book2/chapter8/body_chapter8.html The solution suggested by Qutub for jahiliyya problem was the establishment of a new elite, a saleh jamaat (righteous group), among the Muslims that would struggle against the new jahiliyya (ignoring the divine ordained laws of Islam)as the Prophet had once did against the old jahiliyya. For him, Islam was not just theoretical discipline but was both aqida (belief) and a minhaj (program of action). The faith must be transformed into action. The vanguard must aim at the destruction of the jahiliyya with all its values, rules, leaders and legacy.

Althought not as widely known as to be considered common knowledge, it is relatively well known that the aim of Al Qaeda and related organizations is to unite Muslims against the infidel. This can be interpreted in many ways...most recently to drive American forces from Islamic soil, but has the larger purpose of bringing the world under the rule of an Islamic theocracy.

This has the implications of being a thread of its own, so lets stick to the discussion at hand, EH? Care to reply to the rest of my last post?

[QUOTE=Volvo Villa Vovve
Well personally I think having the gut to go against the only superpowers proves that UN is not obsolete. Because during the cold war it was really hard for UN to act because they had to consider the will of the both superpowers. For example Un was not able to critizes the vietnam war or the war in afganistan. Also there could not take a firm stand for democracy during that time, but they are doing it today. Also UN just obeyed the will of USA then they became the only superpower, first war against Iraq and also said that the liberation of Kosovo was ok, even if NATO didn't have the aproval of the security counsel. But the second Iraq war proved that the UN could follow the will of people of the world instead of the will of the only superpower. That I think have really pissed of some Americans that don't want to have anybody object to their internationall politics and who want the UN to be USA's tool. Also this is just some of the things the UN is envolved in so there are atleast not totally useless.
[/QUOTE]

Explain to me how opposing the deposition of one of the most murderous dictators of this age is taking a stand for democracy.

Oh, and here's something the UN was involved in which puts a sour taste in my mouth after reading what positive things the UN has been doing:

OIL FOR FOOD

Go figure.

No whammy.

If there was one thing drilled into my skull through my interactions with participants of two separate world wars and three 'police actions', is that there is nothing at all in this or any other other world which requires bloodshed to defend that is worthwhile. Not a flag, a nation, an ideology, a religion, race, language, leader or scrap of paper sitting inside a glass box.

No-one said anything about getting involved in every humanitarian cause going. If you're going to try dodging criticism for the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation by making lip-noises about humanitarianism, however, you're setting yourselves up for valid criticism on that front.

Own up to the fact that America's involvement in Iraq has virtually nothing to do with humanitarianism, and virtually everything to do with securing another country's resources for American consumption, and maybe you won't get figuratively slapped upside the head for blatant hipocricy.

Not that I'm expecting anyone to own up to anything. Go ahead and act as though somehow you're the aggrieved party in all this. Be my (unwanted) guest.

Wow. I was reading this, and I almost saw your point, but then you misspelled hypocrisy, and I almost shat myself laughing at you. I have no intention of listening to further drivel. And in response to your statement about America securing Iraq's resources for itself, ask yourself this: is all the oil in Iraq better spent in the hands of the free Iraqi government, and through them America, or in the hands of Saddam Hussein. That oil could power Iraqi and American factories and vehicles, or Saddam could have used it to fuel his war machines. Which would you prefer. Oh, and while I'm on the subject, it's not like America is the only country that will buy oil from the new Iraqi government. Get this: Europe, China, Japan, and many other industrialized nations will too. Ponder that, Einstein.

The mere fact that we are discussing it proves that there is a lot of doubt about it.

Go ahead and make blanket statements with no fact to support them if you will, but don't be surprised when your opinion is not even considered in a debate.

Also, it is funny how you seem to put the blame of 9-11 on Clinton's policies when Clinton warned Bush Jr. about OBL and Bush did nothing. Like the policies of Clinton had something to do with it. :rolleyes:

Did you know that Clinton had the opportunity to arrest Osama bin Laden, and HE JUST LET THE BASTARD WALK! Did you know that in response to Iraq VIOLATING UN SANCTIONS on the no fly zone and WMD production, Bill Clinton decided to retaliate by launching ONE missile at a randomly chosen government office building? And get this: he specifically ordered it to be launched AFTER everyone had gone home for the night! The only people killed were innocent Iraqi janitors. Add all these screwups to disgracing the status of the President, and you get the bulk of Clinton's presidency. Don't even get me started on Clinton. Man, he makes my blood boil.

About Sudans offer to hand over bin laden
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

You do realize that not NEWS..but more of a columnist personal coment...

and you do realize that Mansoor Ijaz is founder and chairman of Crescent Investment Management LLC...

dont you?

http://www.benadorassociates.com/ijaz.php
.

okay lets see what links I can dredge up.

This is about and attempt in afganistan.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
.

actually this is more about the 911 comission...

If you wanna debate about the 911 comission findings ...we shall talk about the whole report.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/
.

You do realize that not NEWS..but more of a columnist personal coment...

and you do realize that Mansoor Ijaz is founder and chairman of Crescent Investment Management LLC...

dont you?

He also does some work for fox news now.. So what? Back then he was a Clinton supporter. Additionially, there was a Washington Post article that corroborated this article but took a slightly differant spin on it(focused the inability to prosecute in the US). I will try to dig up the link again. If it was dealt with like a war instead of a police action, we would simply have grabbed him and thrown him in a deep dark hole somewhere, like we will do now.

In any case, are you claiming the incident regarding sudan didnt happen? Or are you simply ignoring it because of your opinions of Masoor Ijaz. BTW, this person strikes me as exactly the type of "fixer" that would be used in situations as murky as this.

here is the washington post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61251-2001Oct2

Like I said, they take a completely differant angle on it, but if Clinton really was "obsessed" with OBL and thought he was the gravest threat to America as he claims, then he would have found a way. Look, maybe the legal reason are accurate, I have no way of knowing if that was the man's motivations or not.

But dont tell me it didnt happen. And dont tell me Clinton couldnt have done something about it especially given his genius at skirting the nuances of the law. I am sure than the Sudanese would have been more than willing to "dissapear" OBL, their govt doesnt strike me as one that cares if 1 man or a 100,000 women and children stopped stealing our oxygen.

I am sure a man whose mastery of the language is such that he can define "is" in multiple ways can figure out how to get something done in Sudan while still remaining in the strict confines of the law.

He also does some work for fox news now...Oh reilly?

who would have guessed :D

here is some backround on your FOXnews darling "reporter"

http://www.benadorassociates.com/ijaz.php
.

Oh reilly?

who would have guessed :D

here is some backround on your FOXnews "journalist"

http://www.benadorassociates.com/ijaz.php
.

Like I said, he seems to be exactly the type that would be involved with these types of things. Smart, motivated and connected. How do you think business is done in realworld politics? Choir boys sitting around sipping tea and talking global ideals?

I see these as positives with regards to his credibility in this matter, why dont you?

I apologize for Saddam - The little bugger got out of his cage when I was cleaning it. I thought he would never survive out in the world but apparently I was wrong. Sorry.

I will ask you again. Do you believe that the Sudan incident didnt happen, as Clinton claimed in an interview with Dan Rather?

Are you saying there was no attempt at a deal between Clinton and the Sudanese govt with regards to OBL?

...he seems to be exactly the type that would be involved with these types of things. Smart, motivated and connected. How do you think business is done in realworld politics? Choir boys sitting around sipping tea and talking global ideals?

I see these as positives with regards to his credibility in this matter, why dont you?because I have a brain?

I will ask you again. Do you believe that the Sudan incident didnt happen, as Clinton claimed in an interview with Dan Rather?

Are you saying there was no attempt at a deal between Clinton and the Sudanese govt with regards to OBL?

I don't know about Sudan, but the CIA was supposedly giving Osama dialysis sometime before 9-11. Which brings up the question... how has he survived so long out in that cave on the Pakistani border?

because I have a brain?

My dog also has a brain, yet even he does not stoop to such low rhetoric as you.

My dog also has a brain, yet even he does not stoop to such low rhetoric as you.does he "stoops" at the FoxNews Channel?

Or presumably a "completely non-partisan" ultra-conservative blog...
Can't speak for all of them, but you know I don't always get my stuff from a conservative blog. I actually have an eclectic assortment of reading material, and it's not all conservative, and it's not all on the Internet.

Given the abuse at some of the major news outlets (right, left, and purportedly center), whether it's Fox News or the New York Times, or even the Nation, I haven't found a single news source that is truly non-partisan or truly accurate - every news source has an axe to grind, and too many of them seem to like to either skip the facts, distort the facts, or fabricate entire stories.

because I have a brain?

and your implication by this statement is what?? That others dont?

Poor argument. but keep at it, i am sure many college freshman will follow along until they grow up.

and your implication by this statement is what?? That others dont?.do I need to spell it out?
I tried to be nice...but you are not allowing me..

the Implication of my statement is that you are an idiot, a dumbass...

...only an Idiot could see only positives with regards to the credibility of a FOXnews darling like Ijaz.
...only an Idiot could beleive Mr Ijaz when he says he is a Clinton supporter.
...only an Idiot could beleive Mr Ijaz is unbiased.

and if Bozzy and his Dog beleive Mr Ijaz...they are idiots too.


<< are the implications of my statement clear enough?

do I need to spell it out?
I tried to be nice...but you are not allowing me..

the Implication of my statement is that you are an idiot, a dumbass, just like Bozzy and his Dog...

...only an Idiot could see only positives with regards to the credibility of a FOXnews darling like Ijaz.
...only an Idiot could beleive Mr Ijaz when he says he is a Clinton supporter.
...only an Idiot could beleive Mr Ijaz is unbiased.


...are the implications of my statement clear enough?

And what do you have to say about the washington post corroborating this?

And exactly why are you getting hysterical?

edit: are you drunk or high or something? It is a friday.

And exactly why are you getting hysterical?hysterical?...must be Friday! ....full moon? . *calls the valium dealer*


BTW feel free to link the W.Post article.

edit: are you drunk or high or something? It is a friday.

your edit was late by half-a-second :)

hysterical?...must be Friday! ....full moon? . *calls the valium dealer*


BTW feel free to link the W.Post article.

I already did a few posts back. Are you not fully reading my posts?

edit: post 300 was the one, read the post before the link

this is a simple search on Mr Ijaz

http://www.google.com/search?q=Ijaz+fox&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

someone had this to say about him:
____________________________

...So now the revisionist history is that Fox News Analyst Mansoor Ijaz was a Clinton administration appointment!?!
He was in no position to have any intiative "blocked", as any waterboy is not calling signals in the huddle.
As for knowing which side of his bread is buttered on:

"Ijaz is founder and chairman of The Crescent Partnerships, a series of New York-based private equity partnerships focused exclusively on the development of national security technologies. The firm�s partners include retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Abrahamson, former director of President Reagan�s Strategic Defense Initiative and Turkey�s Global Group. Former CIA Director James Woolsey serves as vice chairman of Crescent�s Board of Governors. "

... Chairman of the Board, whose investments deal with the machines & technology of war...

Now doing a simple search on Mr.Ijaz finds him to be the darling of Fox news, NewsMax ( where some have sourced Ijaz's anti-Clarke spiel) the National review and basically all the Right Wing warping-of-reality-portals that were established to undermine non-GOP initiatives.

and this:
________________________________________________


Ijaz, a wealthy investment manager of South Asian heritage who has expressed support for Hillary Clinton, is also a frequent and vocal booster of neo-conservative causes and difficult to label ideologically. Leading all other guests with five appearances during the period studied—he’s appeared on Fox more than 100 times on other occasions—Ijaz regularly echoes Bush White House and neo-conservative claims about global threats, ignoring evidence while citing only shadowy, unnamed sources.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/19467/

this is a simple search on Mr Ijaz

http://www.google.com/search?q=Ijaz+fox&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

someone had this to say about him:
____________________________

...So now the revisionist history is that Fox News Analyst Mansoor Ijaz was a Clinton administration appointment!?!
He was in no position to have any intiative "blocked", as any waterboy is not calling signals in the huddle.
As for knowing which side of his bread is buttered on:

"Ijaz is founder and chairman of The Crescent Partnerships, a series of New York-based private equity partnerships focused exclusively on the development of national security technologies. The firm�s partners include retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Abrahamson, former director of President Reagan�s Strategic Defense Initiative and Turkey�s Global Group. Former CIA Director James Woolsey serves as vice chairman of Crescent�s Board of Governors. "

... Chairman of the Board, whose investments deal with the machines & technology of war...

Now doing a simple search on Mr.Ijaz finds him to be the darling of Fox news, NewsMax ( where some have sourced Ijaz's anti-Clarke spiel) the National review and basically all the Right Wing warping-of-reality-portals that were established to undermine non-GOP initiatives.

and this:
________________________________________________


Ijaz, a wealthy investment manager of South Asian heritage who has expressed support for Hillary Clinton, is also a frequent and vocal booster of neo-conservative causes and difficult to label ideologically. Leading all other guests with five appearances during the period studied—he’s appeared on Fox more than 100 times on other occasions—Ijaz regularly echoes Bush White House and neo-conservative claims about global threats, ignoring evidence while citing only shadowy, unnamed sources.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/19467/


I dont understand why you will discount other things and continue to claim bad things(Though I dont see them as bad) against this person. He is obviously some sort of "fixer" type and his politics is relatively indifferant.

given that his account is corroborated, I dont understand why you choose to ignore it, except that you are most probably so blindsided that you cannot accept information contrary to your views.

Do you fail to see that is exactly the type of person who would be a go between in this sort of situation. A situation that few want to come to light until its resolved. A situation that would never have been brought up unless the failure of one party was so dramatic that someone felt compelled to speak of it.

Why do I bother, you have made your selective reading of facts very apparant. Clearly you choose to ignore any information that would require you to alter your world view.

Good luck with that.

I dont understand why you will discount other thing and continue to claim bad tings(Though I dont see them as bad) against this person. He is obviously some sort of "fixer" type and his politics is relatively indifferant.

given that his account is corroborated....corroborated???
when was his account corroborated?... by whom?

corroborated???
when was his account corroborated?... by whom?

Not his account exactly but that negotiations with Sudan concerning OBL took place. If you fail to read posts and ramble on hysterically, you will simply be ignored.

And your links are useless, one goes to pages of google results and the other goes to a story about the composition of Brit Humes guest as reporter by FAIR.

Not his account exactly but that negotiations with Sudan concerning OBL took place. If you fail to read posts and ramble on hysterically, you will simply be ignored.

It's all in the book, "Losing Bin Laden". You can buy it at Amazon. You know, when I was younger, the Internet was called "books".

It's all in the book, "Losing Bin Laden". You can buy it at Amazon. You know, when I was younger, the Internet was called "books".

Yeah, I have heard of it.

BTW, doesnt oceandrive remind you of miracle max in "Princess Bride" when he was running around with his hands over his ears going "I cant hear you, I cant hear you"?

Yeah, I have heard of it.

BTW, doesnt oceandrive remind you of miracle max in "Princess Bride" when he was running around with his hands over his ears going "I cant hear you, I cant hear you"?

Yes, but George Orwell saw them coming:

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …"

If OceanDrive had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If OceanDrive had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into the ego of one of the members of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture.

I guss you missed the part about 9/11 changed everything. The old rules don't apply any more. The tin-pot dictators time is up and we clearly announced it and are enforcin our resolutions - with or without anyone elses help. After you get attacked you'll get it ... The USA will no longer ignore, look the other way or remotely even tolerate terrorist regimes, nor should the rest of the civilized world.

That's exactly how They want you to feel. I know. I'm one of Them. 9/11 is a lie. Don't believe me? Do some digging. I'll agree it was a tragedy. Unfortunately, it was a tragedy orchestrated by our very own [U.S.]government -- visit www.signs-of-the-times.org for more information. Be sure to watch this flash video too:

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/

Brace yourself for a world of horrors.

Explain to me how opposing the deposition of one of the most murderous dictators of this age is taking a stand for democracy.

Oh, and here's something the UN was involved in which puts a sour taste in my mouth after reading what positive things the UN has been doing:

OIL FOR FOOD

Go figure.

Sorry for being late but can answer your question. If you have a lonely superpower that only represent around 5 % of the world who wants to use war to liberate a country and the most of the rest of the world don't want, can it be seen as a democratic dicesion. And why they don't like that war have been mention a milliontimes on this forum and on other places...

Sorry for being late but can answer your question. If you have a lonely superpower that only represent around 5 % of the world who wants to use war to liberate a country and the most of the rest of the world don't want, can it be seen as a democratic dicesion. And why they don't like that war have been mention a milliontimes on this forum and on other places...

we dont live in a global democracy. America is sovereign.

we dont live in a global democracy. America is sovereign.
Two points:

Iraq was a "sovereign" nation that was invaded by the US.

The US is bound by the UN Charter to adhere to the "global democracy" of that organization.

Two points:

Iraq was a "sovereign" nation that was invaded by the US.


It was and now is again.



The US is bound by the UN Charter to adhere to the "global democracy" of that organization.


We have had this debate before and there is no point in continuing. You believe that the Constitution and signing onto the UN charter binds us to the UN even if our own interessts are at risk. I say that the people who signed the Un charter had no right to sign away something that is vested in the people. Besides, the constitution isnt a suicide pact.

Whether violating the cease fire(and whether Saddam was even in violation) has also been repeatedly discussed. It is also my belief that you refuse to even read what the other side has to say, so what is the point of continuing on about the "high and mighty" UN? I say it isnt worth the real estate it takes up and you think it is the final arbritrator in the world. We arent going to change our minds.

Well my point was only that we have a international body called the UN made up by indepedent state that decided to follow the will of the world opinion instead of the will of the only superpower in an international issues. That I personally think was a very good step even if mutch can be done with todays worldorder.

Because it of course natural that a superpower thinks it always knows that it's best thing to do and that its will should always be obeyed. But personally I think that the will of the rest of the world should be heard and even listen to ecpecially sens the superpower only represent 5 % of the people of the world, and not always are correct. That is also a American thing because you American belive in representive and divided power national why not belive in it international too?

Well my point was only that we have a international body called the UN made up by indepedent state that decided to follow the will of the world opinion instead of the will of the only superpower in an international issues. That I personally think was a very good step even if mutch can be done with todays worldorder.

Because it of course natural that a superpower thinks it always knows that it's best thing to do and that its will should always be obeyed. But personally I think that the will of the rest of the world should be heard and even listen to ecpecially sens the superpower only represent 5 % of the people of the world, and not always are correct. That is also a American thing because you American belive in representive and divided power national why not belive in it international too?

Cause quite frankly, the rest of the world has some pretty askew notions of justice.

You can't execute teenage serial killers, it's a human rights violation!

That guy that killed 100's of thousands of Arabs and Kurds? Oh, he's the leader of a sovereign nation. We can't interfere with that.

Or how about the U.N. threatening to shoot down planes full of relief supplies over Sudan because they did not want them to "supply the rebels" in Darfur (which the UN has conveniently reversed their stance on, now that the U.S. is entrenched in Iraq and has no resources to divert to Sudan.)

http://www.lnsart.com/Sudan%20Slave%20Story.htm

If OceanDrive had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If OceanDrive had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into the ego of one of the members of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture.
If I could have my way...hmmm lets see


actually if I was God..most conflicts would be solved like this:

If the Bosnians and and Croats want to have their own state I would make it so. If the Lituanians , Kazaks and Chechens want the same I would make it so...If the Quebequers and Slovac wants their independence I would make it happen...Todays Irak yould be 3 countries...and the US would be 2 countries...the former USSR would be like 25 countries...and of course Palestina and Israel would be separated states...in separate planets...

all Presidents that are not wanted by most of their people..would be deated..after warnings (a la Myrth) :D

Likewise artificially separated peoples like the Koreas, panama/colombia, kuwait/Irak would get a chance to reunify. (on a 20 year trial base)

so you are halfway rigth about Afhganistan and Iraq...coz Kuwait would be part of a larger country...and most of the MidleEast rulers would go on "vacation"...

That's exactly how They want you to feel. I know. I'm one of Them. 9/11 is a lie. Don't believe me? Do some digging. I'll agree it was a tragedy. Unfortunately, it was a tragedy orchestrated by our very own [U.S.]government -- visit www.signs-of-the-times.org for more information. Be sure to watch this flash video too:

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/

Brace yourself for a world of horrors.

I've already heard all that crap. 9/11 is not a lie. I've done my digging.

If it was a lie, then why did Bin Laden admit it? Why did Sheik Khalid Mohammed admit it? Why did Moussasoui admit it? Why did Ramsi bin al-Sheib admit it?

Why is there so much evidence off of their captured laptops that corroborates the whole plot?

What's more plausible - that a small group of men plotted and carried out the plot, or thousands of US military and CIA people kept a secret?

Don't make me laugh.

Are you still talking about this?

Doesn't it get dull?

No.

Well, right now I'm finding the whole forum thing kinda dull, and pointless to boot. Sorry, go ahead and lock horns all you want (but mind the junior hall-monitors, they're forever looking to impress the mods).

Feh.

Well, it would be more interesting to have these discussions down at a quiet place where everyone could get a drink.

It would also make some of these people less mouthy, as they wouldn't want to get their head knocked down between their shoulderblades.

Well, it would be more interesting to have these discussions down at a quiet place where everyone could get a drink.

It would also make some of these people less mouthy, as they wouldn't want to get their head knocked down between their shoulderblades.

Legs, if it isn't one side mouthing off, it's the other. There's fun to be had there, but not when you find your head knocked clear off by some well-intentioned fascist with even less of a life than I have.

Maybe I should have just made good on splitting a few months ago...I'm sure Aramannar would've liked that...but no, I had to stick around and get deleted 'cause some euphemism for the human phallus likes playing thought-police games.

Legs, for a conservative, you nonetheless have earned my respect and admiration. Coming from me, that's saying something. At this point, I can't think of one other person on all these forums that I could say the same thing about. Well, maybe Sumamba Bhuwan.

I'm not going to do the whole "I'm leaving NS" bullshit (YES! I said the naughty word 'BULLSHIT', oh dear mods - and it feels SO good, I'll say it again - 'BULLSHIT' - there, that's better.), but you're probably going to see a little less of me around here. Right now I'm alternating between boredom and disenchantment with this place, as its' become way too much of a mutual admiration society - albeit a mutual admiration society policed by sycophantic hypocrites.

I need to find out where the real talk is going down, 'cause it sure as Hell ain't happening here anymore.

Legs, if it isn't one side mouthing off, it's the other. There's fun to be had there, but not when you find your head knocked clear off by some well-intentioned fascist with even less of a life than I have.

Maybe I should have just made good on splitting a few months ago...I'm sure Aramannar would've liked that...but no, I had to stick around and get deleted 'cause some euphemism for the human phallus likes playing thought-police games.

Legs, for a conservative, you nonetheless have earned my respect and admiration. Coming from me, that's saying something. At this point, I can't think of one other person on all these forums that I could say the same thing about. Well, maybe Sumamba Bhuwan.

I'm not going to do the whole "I'm leaving NS" bullshit (YES! I said the naughty word 'BULLSHIT', oh dear mods - and it feels SO good, I'll say it again - 'BULLSHIT' - there, that's better.), but you're probably going to see a little less of me around here. Right now I'm alternating between boredom and disenchantment with this place, as its' become way too much of a mutual admiration society - albeit a mutual admiration society policed by sycophantic hypocrites.

I need to find out where the real talk is going down, 'cause it sure as Hell ain't happening here anymore.


The only problem I've seen here is the thin-skinned nature of some people. Call someone a name and they get mad, and complain to the mods. Mods say rules are broken, and you disappear.

I can't count the number of times I've been called a name, and didn't complain to the mods.

Of course, the namecalling is something you wouldn't experience in a face to face discussion - someone might reach across the table and slap someone.

I enjoy talking to you and to Cat-Tribe. At least you all like to cite evidence and discuss things logically.

Sorry for being late but can answer your question. If you have a lonely superpower that only represent around 5 % of the world who wants to use war to liberate a country and the most of the rest of the world don't want, can it be seen as a democratic dicesion. And why they don't like that war have been mention a milliontimes on this forum and on other places...

Of course it can, seeing as "dicesion" is not a word.

Cause quite frankly, the rest of the world has some pretty askew notions of justice.

You can't execute teenage serial killers, it's a human rights violation!

That guy that killed 100's of thousands of Arabs and Kurds? Oh, he's the leader of a sovereign nation. We can't interfere with that.

Or how about the U.N. threatening to shoot down planes full of relief supplies over Sudan because they did not want them to "supply the rebels" in Darfur (which the UN has conveniently reversed their stance on, now that the U.S. is entrenched in Iraq and has no resources to divert to Sudan.)

http://www.lnsart.com/Sudan%20Slave%20Story.htm

The short answer this was a issue that the USA thought the worldcommunity was stupid and the worldcommunity though the USA was stopped, then you could have let the one with the biggest wallet and gun decide, but it is more nice I think to let the majority decide.

The long answer: Well you can execute teenagekiller if you want but if they are under 18 it's considering a violation against the humanrights, because they state that evryone under 18 should consider to be children. Atleast most of the world agree on that people under 18 is not fully grown up, for example they are not allowed to vote in most countries including the USA. So I think it is a fine decision of the UN, also most developed democracy thinks killing people is not the right way to stop crimes. But of course nothing they can do to stop it in todays world. That the UN can do is to deal with the big problems

For the secondpart killing 100 of thousand of people is of course clearly a violent of humanrights and someting that UN could act against. Like for example put sanction or even launch an atack against Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war, but then the US administration even stopped the congress from passing a bill that allowed USA sanctions against Iraq. But that was during the coldwar then the UN could not do mucth because of the coldwar and Russia and USA looking after there petdictators. In todays world UN can and does alot more even if it's alot of internationell politics between the bigpowers that can make it tricky, but for example UN with the help of USA and many other counrties stopped Iraqs take over of Kuwait. But today most countries in the world though it was stupid to start a war against a regime that today was most like all the other dictatorship and had most of there brutall crimes tens or even more years back in time ecpecially sens USA tried to sell the war with phony WMD:s.

And for Sudan they hav finally settle the peaceagremeent between the south and the centralgoverment after 20 years of war so that it is really good and hopefully the situation in Darfur will hopefullly be solved also.

CanuckHeaven, I believe I have adequately defended the position you asked me to prove. Care to respond to the rest of my post?

And for Sudan they hav finally settle the peaceagremeent between the south and the centralgoverment after 20 years of war so that it is really good and hopefully the situation in Darfur will hopefullly be solved also.

Yes, if we wait a few more months, there won't be any people left in Darfur - they will have either been killed or driven off, and it will no longer be a problem.

They haven't settled anything by a peace agreement. The killing is still going on. The agreement doesn't provide for people to come back, or for the Sudanese government to do anything about the militias that caused the killing at their direction in the first place.

Yes, if we wait a few more months, there won't be any people left in Darfur - they will have either been killed or driven off, and it will no longer be a problem.

They haven't settled anything by a peace agreement. The killing is still going on. The agreement doesn't provide for people to come back, or for the Sudanese government to do anything about the militias that caused the killing at their direction in the first place.
Agreed. At least the US (kind of) dropped its opposition to the ICC.

Originally Posted by Isanyonehome
while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.

Right. So Saddam was a murderous bastard, we all know that.
The problem is, no matter how much I would like to believe it, the situation in Iraq hasn't exactly improved since the American invasion.
Besides, USA didn't declare war on Iraq bacause Saddam Hussein was a murderous bastard who oppressed his own people, they did it (officially, that is) because they believed he had weapons of mass destruction, a rumour that was later proven to be wrong.

They found as much weapons as we did, but at a much higher cost.
/ Hans Blix

Now we can only hope that the people of Iraq finally will have peace and freedom, but frankly, that moment seems to be pretty far away.

Right. So Saddam was a murderous bastard, we all know that.
The problem is, no matter how much I would like to believe it, the situation in Iraq hasn't exactly improved since the American invasion.
Besides, USA didn't declare war on Iraq bacause Saddam Hussein was a murderous bastard who oppressed his own people, they did it (officially, that is) because they believed he had weapons of mass destruction, a rumour that was later proven to be wrong.

I rememer there being a whole list of reasons. The decided to focus on 1 to make the selling that much easier. Then he expnded it again when the WMD angle didnt pan out so well.

Irrespective, the point of the thread wasnt about whether the US was justified or not. The point that there are some things that justify force, and this was one of them. The people who are always against war are just plain wrong.

Besides, it makes for good news and reporters have to eat too.

Get off your high horse. America stands by and doesn't interevene through plenty of genocides. Saddam's brande of genocide may be cruel as any of that like is, but it isn't as massive or immediate as plenty of other genocides that have occured. Rwhanda and Sudan are two examples. Well, they are if Africans count, but as far as the American public is concerned, they apparently don't.

Get off your high horse. America stands by and doesn't interevene through plenty of genocides. Saddam's brande of genocide may be cruel as any of that like is, but it isn't as massive or immediate as plenty of other genocides that have occured. Rwhanda and Sudan are two examples. Well, they are if Africans count, but as far as the American public is concerned, they apparently don't.

If we created Saddam (and we did), we're responsible for cleaning him up, aren't we?

If someone else created Rwanda and Sudan (not the US), then some European country needs to get off its ass and get busy cleaning up.

The French, among Europeans, seem to be one of the only countries willing to try and keep order in former colonies or places where they've interfered.

while I can understand why many people disagree with the Us war against Iraq, when I read stuff like this I just want to tell the pacifists to F**K**F.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves







Yeah, the coalition of the willing was so much worse on the civillian population than Saddam was [/sarcasm]

God damn pacifists..how much blood needs to be spilt before you people can justify action?


The war was about WMD, not internal affiars. Besides, what about the genocide in Rawanda, where several million people have been killed? We don't seem to care about there, do we?

If we created Saddam (and we did), we're responsible for cleaning him up, aren't we?

If someone else created Rwanda and Sudan (not the US), then some European country needs to get off its ass and get busy cleaning up.

The French, among Europeans, seem to be one of the only countries willing to try and keep order in former colonies or places where they've interfered.


Yeah, but if said European Country can't or dosen't, isn't it our responsibility?

Yeah, but if said European Country can't or dosen't, isn't it our responsibility?

No. We already have quite a few Cold War messes to finish cleaning up. And it's expensive.

Remind me to list the number of times France has intervened unilaterally in Africa without UN permission in order to keep things straight.

We're just doing what the French do.

No. We already have quite a few Cold War messes to finish cleaning up. And it's expensive.

Remind me to list the number of times France has intervened unilaterally in Africa without UN permission in order to keep things straight.

We're just doing what the French do.


There's such a thing as greater good. North Korea's nukes are a great example. It's in everyone's intrests to insure that no one else gets nukes. If no one else can or will step in, we have to. Taking one for the team. Or, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Get off your high horse. America stands by and doesn't interevene through plenty of genocides. Saddam's brande of genocide may be cruel as any of that like is, but it isn't as massive or immediate as plenty of other genocides that have occured. Rwhanda and Sudan are two examples. Well, they are if Africans count, but as far as the American public is concerned, they apparently don't.

Stop your whining. At least we do something. I dont know where you are from, but in most places doing something is better than doing nothing and hoping it will go away.

There's such a thing as greater good. North Korea's nukes are a great example. It's in everyone's intrests to insure that no one else gets nukes. If no one else can or will step in, we have to. Taking one for the team. Or, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Yes, let's all get our sage advice from Marvel Comics.

As I recall, North Korea is a UN problem. The famed and vaunted UN, which as we all know, is not the tool of the US, and is composed of many nations other than the US, who also have military capabilities. UN Resolution 90 covers the North Korean problem - which is still ongoing.

If the UN wants us to finish the job, let them bring it to a vote. The last thing we should have is the US doing something without UN permission, no matter how many millions of people get killed because North Korea goes postal with nuclear weapons in the near future.

Let me clarify what I posted earlier. We could have done many different things that would have helped out the team more then taking down Saddam.

The war was about WMD, not internal affiars. Besides, what about the genocide in Rawanda, where several million people have been killed? We don't seem to care about there, do we?


Look at all the hubub over Iraq, and we had a broken cease fire and many UN resolutions behind us. Imagine somewhere else. Besides, what would Rwanda gain us in terms of long term stability in the Middle East?

Yes, let's all get our sage advice from Marvel Comics.

As I recall, North Korea is a UN problem. The famed and vaunted UN, which as we all know, is not the tool of the US, and is composed of many nations other than the US, who also have military capabilities. UN Resolution 90 covers the North Korean problem - which is still ongoing.

If the UN wants us to finish the job, let them bring it to a vote. The last thing we should have is the US doing something without UN permission, no matter how many millions of people get killed because North Korea goes postal with nuclear weapons in the near future.


What can I say, I'm a comic geek.

But we can't just say that North Korea's "not out problem." True, most nations in the U.N. have militaries, but ours is undoubtibly the best.

You do realize we didn't get the U.N.'s approval on Iraq?

"no matter how many millions of people get killed"

No matter how many millions die?

Let me guess: you're also pro-life.

Look at all the hubub over Iraq, and we had a broken cease fire and many UN resolutions behind us. Imagine somewhere else. Besides, what would Rwanda gain us in terms of long term stability in the Middle East?


Nothing. But it would save a few million lives, maybe? And possibly plant another democracy in Africa, which, need I say, isn't exactly the most democratic region in the world?

Let me clarify what I posted earlier. We could have done many different things that would have helped out the team more then taking down Saddam.

I am sure there were literally millions of other things we could have done. Who are you or I to second guess our administration especially when the results are looking so good.

Of course we could always take Jimmy Carter's approach..because that has worked so well for us in the past.

What can I say, I'm a comic geek.

But we can't just say that North Korea's "not out problem." True, most nations in the U.N. have militaries, but ours is undoubtibly the best.

You do realize we didn't get the U.N.'s approval on Iraq?

"no matter how many millions of people get killed"

No matter how many millions die?

Let me guess: you're also pro-life.

No, I'm not pro-life. I'm pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and I'm all for soldiers killing who they have to in order to get the job done.

Yes, we didn't get the approval on Iraq. But we were just doing what the French always do - act unilaterally to clean up their own messes.

Millions have not died as a result of the recent Iraq operation.

For messes that are not the direct result of US actions, I suggest you take it up with the UN. In my opinion, the UN is a trash heap of corruption and waste, but everyone else wants it to be the final authority.

Nothing. But it would save a few million lives, maybe? And possibly plant another democracy in Africa, which, need I say, isn't exactly the most democratic region in the world?

One seection of the world at a time.

I am sure there were literally millions of other things we could have done. Who are you or I to second guess our administration especially when the results are looking so good.

Of course we could always take Jimmy Carter's approach..because that has worked so well for us in the past.


The results are looking good for anyone other then Haliburton?

I hadn't known.

We lose about a dozen people a day in car bombings, their democracy is a tyranny by majority, and the world dosen't want us their.

Yes, I'd say the results are looking just peachy, wouldn't you?

No, I'm not pro-life. I'm pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and I'm all for soldiers killing who they have to in order to get the job done.

Yes, we didn't get the approval on Iraq. But we were just doing what the French always do - act unilaterally to clean up their own messes.

Millions have not died as a result of the recent Iraq operation.

For messes that are not the direct result of US actions, I suggest you take it up with the UN. In my opinion, the UN is a trash heap of corruption and waste, but everyone else wants it to be the final authority.


You know who has broken THE most U.N. sanctions?

Not Iran. Not North Korea. Not even Canada.

The good old US of A.

The results are looking good for anyone other then Haliburton?

I hadn't known.

We lose about a dozen people a day in car bombings, their democracy is a tyranny by majority, and the world dosen't want us their.

Yes, I'd say the results are looking just peachy, wouldn't you?

We're at about 750 US combat deaths per year. Democracy is a natural tyranny. The world can kiss our ass.

Most of the people who get killed by car bombs are Iraqis - the insurgents have little ability to engage in the sort of guerilla small arms fights that the Viet Cong were famous for - if they do, they end up smelling up the countryside with their rotting corpses. So they have to resort to random bombings, and hope they get an American here and there.

Meanwhile, the areas outside of the Sunni triangle are doing quite well, thank you, and far better than they were under Saddam.

One seection of the world at a time.

I agree. And Africa would have been the better region.

I agree. And Africa would have been the better region.

If the US has to clean up Africa, then Europe should foot the bill.

We're at about 750 US combat deaths per year. Democracy is a natural tyranny. The world can kiss our ass.

Most of the people who get killed by car bombs are Iraqis - the insurgents have little ability to engage in the sort of guerilla small arms fights that the Viet Cong were famous for - if they do, they end up smelling up the countryside with their rotting corpses. So they have to resort to random bombings, and hope they get an American here and there.

Meanwhile, the areas outside of the Sunni triangle are doing quite well, thank you, and far better than they were under Saddam.


Yes, mostly civilians die. Civilians who didn't shoot US soliders, nor ask to get blown up.

Yes, mostly civilians die. Civilians who didn't shoot US soliders, nor ask to get blown up.

Maybe they should turn in their insurgent brothers and sons, and this would all be over quite soon. I'm sure they realize that the more they do this crap, the longer the US will stay.

If the US has to clean up Africa, then Europe should foot the bill.


That's a nice policy in theory, but I don't belive people should have to suffer for sins of their past that they did not commit. Yes, it would be nice, but it just can't happen. Besides, we have the cash, and it coulden't be more expensive than Iraq.

Maybe they should turn in their insurgent brothers and sons, and this would all be over quite soon. I'm sure they realize that the more they do this crap, the longer the US will stay.


Oh, that sounds so easy, but it isn't.

You can't turn in a son who's fighting for a cause you're not even sure you are against easily.

Besides, no data exists on the percentage of relatives of insurgents in Iraq who have been killed by car bombs, so I can't expose this "fact" as the mis giving it probobly is.

But I goofed on the "dozen people dead a day", so I'll forgive you and we will call it even.

That's a nice policy in theory, but I don't belive people should have to suffer for sins of their past that they did not commit. Yes, it would be nice, but it just can't happen. Besides, we have the cash, and it coulden't be more expensive than Iraq.

It's expensive. We're cleaning up US messes. One could argue that Liberia is our mess, and perhaps our meddling in Angola through the CIA. Other than that, the rest of the continent is a European mess. We don't have the cash.

People blame us for Saddam. We're to blame for creating the Afghanistan that bred the Taliban and served as the training ground for al-Qaeda. So we're cleaning up. Why shouldn't everyone else be responsible for their own messes? The French do it (I see no UN authorization for the Ivory Coast intervention).

The world would probably be a better place inside of 20 years if other nations did what they knew they should. Huge portions of the world do not live in "civilization". And we can't be asked to "clean up the world" especially after everyone in the world said we weren't right to clean up any of it.

It's expensive. We're cleaning up US messes. One could argue that Liberia is our mess, and perhaps our meddling in Angola through the CIA. Other than that, the rest of the continent is a European mess. We don't have the cash.

People blame us for Saddam. We're to blame for creating the Afghanistan that bred the Taliban and served as the training ground for al-Qaeda. So we're cleaning up. Why shouldn't everyone else be responsible for their own messes? The French do it (I see no UN authorization for the Ivory Coast intervention).

The world would probably be a better place inside of 20 years if other nations did what they knew they should. Huge portions of the world do not live in "civilization". And we can't be asked to "clean up the world" especially after everyone in the world said we weren't right to clean up any of it.


"Why shouldn't everyone else be responsible for their own messes?"

They should be. But if they don't, we should seize the oppertunity to prove ourselves better then they are.

"Why shouldn't everyone else be responsible for their own messes?"

They should be. But if they don't, we should seize the oppertunity to prove ourselves better then they are.

No, we shouldn't. Because they'll give us a rash of shit about it. No one will say we were "better".

No, we shouldn't. Because they'll give us a rash of shit about it. No one will say we were "better".

We will know we did the right thing. The country will be united. Or at least it should be.

We will know we did the right thing. The country will be united. Or at least it should be.

No it won't. Most of the Democrats would oppose any intervention anywhere for any reason. And some Republicans would oppose it unless we could demonstrate that it was to stabilize a market area (i.e., the Persian Gulf).

No it won't. Most of the Democrats would oppose any intervention anywhere for any reason. And some Republicans would oppose it unless we could demonstrate that it was to stabilize a market area (i.e., the Persian Gulf).

Yes, some political talking heads would oppose it. But I woulden't, and most Americans woulden't.

We would have the high moral ground.

In any case, nice debating with you. My off period just ended, so now it's time for English.

The French, among Europeans, seem to be one of the only countries willing to try and keep order in former colonies or places where they've interfered.

Rhwanda was a Belgium colony. And France was the country that armed the Rhwnadan Hutu army. The very same army that stood aside and actually helped the miltia slaughter the Tootsie inhabitants of Rhwanda.

Those Europeoans you seemed to describe as angels are just as heartless as us Americans. All they did was send a few troops to rush their nationals out of there. They didn't want to be involved at all

How about you know some history before you start making proclaimations about Europoean responsibility?

Psh, white man's burden indeed.

No it won't. Most of the Democrats would oppose any intervention anywhere for any reason. And some Republicans would oppose it unless we could demonstrate that it was to stabilize a market area (i.e., the Persian Gulf).

When Clinton sent troops to Kosovo, it was the Republicans who had the bleeding hearts about the safety of our men. The Democrats seemed okay with stopping genocide. And in this instance, America did actually help. And how many soldiers died? I don't think a single one did.

When Clinton sent troops to Kosovo, it was the Republicans who had the bleeding hearts about the safety of our men. The Democrats seemed okay with stopping genocide. And in this instance, America did actually help. And how many soldiers died? I don't think a single one did.

If it's a Republican idea, Democrats will oppose it. And vice versa. Thinking anything else is fantasy.

If it's a Republican idea, Democrats will oppose it. And vice versa. Thinking anything else is fantasy.
Which is doubly pathetic since they both have rather more in common than either would admit.

Which is doubly pathetic since they both have rather more in common than either would admit.

I agree on the pathetic. But both seem to be in the mode of "winner take all, and damn the results".

I agree on the pathetic. But both seem to be in the mode of "winner take all, and damn the results".
It does seem that way from this side of the pond. I think most pro-Kerry feeling here in the UK was from the perspective that he was the lesser of two evils. The irony is that most would also agree that Blair is a lesser evil than Howard.

Ain't politics grand?

It does seem that way from this side of the pond. I think most pro-Kerry feeling here in the UK was from the perspective that he was the lesser of two evils. The irony is that most would also agree that Blair is a lesser evil than Howard.

Ain't politics grand?

I still can't fathom the concept that Blair is a Labour candidate. It screws with everything I ever learned about the Labour Party when I was younger.

I still can't fathom the concept that Blair is a Labour candidate. It screws with everything I ever learned about the Labour Party when I was younger.
And Millions Of Britons Cried Out: "Amen, Brother!"

Tell me about it...

And Millions Of Britons Cried Out: "Amen, Brother!"

Tell me about it...

OK. I'm an American. I vote Republican. I know the US Democratic Party isn't that different - but I accept that - we're a fairly conservative nation.

But I was taught that Labour Party = Socialist. You know, like the rich optimists like George Bernard Shaw - socialist idealists. And I thought that Tories were right wing bigot businessmen in bowler hats who worked as chartered accountants.

Shows you how little information they give us here in America about what goes on in the UK.

OK. I'm an American. I vote Republican. I know the US Democratic Party isn't that different - but I accept that - we're a fairly conservative nation.

But I was taught that Labour Party = Socialist. You know, like the rich optimists like George Bernard Shaw - socialist idealists. And I thought that Tories were right wing bigot businessmen in bowler hats who worked as chartered accountants.

Shows you how little information they give us here in America about what goes on in the UK.
Ha! The Tory description was beautiful. Essentially, Labour kept losing elections to *ugh* Thatcher. So, under Neil Kinnock in the mid-eighties and turn of the nineties, they moved towards social democratism. John Smith took over after John Major (who was quite moderate for the Tories) won the '92 election. He never really got the chance to set an agenda for Labour because, well, he died. Blair won the ensuing leadership election and by the '97 election 'New' Labour had, among other modernising initiatives (including selling their soul to the god of media spin), dumped Clause 4, the socialist heart of the party's doctrine. The rest, as they say, is history.

There are still hardline lefties (much as the Democrats still have the likes of Kucinich), but the power of the party lies in the centre. However, Blair's star is very much waning and Gordon Brown (the current Chancellor and a fairly solid social democrat) is tipped to succeed him some time in the next Parliament.

As for the Tories, in many respects they too have moved to the centre, in terms of conceding the battle on social liberalism. However, they're still quick to play the race card on immigration, etc.

Dunno if you learnt about Liberals (or Liberal Democrats, as they are now known), but their stereotype was that they were all well-meaning bearded middle class sandal-wearers. Nowadays, they're more of a political force. This election could be very interesting as they could establish themselves as a genuinely strong third party. If they fail, heads will roll...

Rhwanda was a Belgium colony. And France was the country that armed the Rhwnadan Hutu army. The very same army that stood aside and actually helped the miltia slaughter the Tootsie inhabitants of Rhwanda.

Those Europeoans you seemed to describe as angels are just as heartless as us Americans. All they did was send a few troops to rush their nationals out of there. They didn't want to be involved at all

How about you know some history before you start making proclaimations about Europoean responsibility?

Psh, white man's burden indeed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This post nearly made me choke on a slice of pie. You ectoplasmic blob, the word is "Tutsi," not "tootsie!" You make the tribe sound like a candy. Man you're hilarious.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This post nearly made me choke on a slice of pie. You ectoplasmic blob, the word is "Tutsi," not "tootsie!" You make the tribe sound like a candy. Man you're hilarious.


youuuuuu pie-eating name caller !