NationStates Jolt Archive

up until yesterday, i have not been suportive of the war in Iraq. i bought into all of the hype about "fighting for oil" and "no WMDs". but this weekend, a channel on tv was running various specials on 9/11, and i remembered why we are truely fighting, and it has nothing to do with oil or weapons of mass distruction. We are fighting for the people; Iraqies and American alike. Saddam Hussein was and evil on par with Osama. He butchered thousands of his own people just to further his power. He may not have aided Osama directly, but he supported his actions. Time and time again he refused to obey the UN. he was a threat. that is why we went to war.


http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/4005g3.jpg
Never forget

Apart from the fact that it's highly unlikely that anyone ever will forget those attrocities (at least while they remain relevant), isn't the bigger problem here that the Bush administration lied to the American people, and to the world, and has used their lies and people like you, who support what they do and don't give a damn about how they get it done, to circumvent the US constitution and undermine America around the world?

the president and all government officals can not be honest 100% of the time. there are certain things that need to be kept confidencial, both for nation security and to keep order in the masses. i get the impression that some people here think that Bush just sits in his oval office and thinks of new ways to piss people off.

What does that picture have to do with Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with the picture.

it has everything to do with it. Saddam was a terrorist in all but name, and he has killed 10 times the number of lives that Al Quida took on that day.

that is why we went to war.

...in Afganistan.

Nothing to do with Iraq.

it has everything to do with it. Saddam was a terrorist in all but name, and he has killed 10 times the number of lives that Al Quida took on that day.

Maybe the US Army shouldn't be throwing stones, if the number of people killed is the sole determinant in these sorts of discussions.

the president and all government officals can not be honest 100% of the time. there are certain things that need to be kept confidencial, both for nation security and to keep order in the masses. i get the impression that some people here think that Bush just sits in his oval office and thinks of new ways to piss people off.

Umm, yeah, but he did lie about the WMDs, and he authorised wiretaps in direction violation of the constitution. That's not secrecy for national security, that's riding roughshod over the people and the law just because he can. Get your head out of your arse and realise that while the war on terror is a cause that it would be good to win, it's not worth it at the price Bush is extracting.

Apart from the fact that it's highly unlikely that anyone ever will forget those attrocities (at least while they remain relevant), isn't the bigger problem here that the Bush administration lied to the American people, and to the world, and has used their lies and people like you, who support what they do and don't give a damn about how they get it done, to circumvent the US constitution and undermine America around the world?
Although that is an important issue, I think the worse attrocity was that the Bush Administration, through promoting those lies, engaged in terrorising its own people.

it has everything to do with it.

It has nothing to do with it. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Saddam was a terrorist in all but name, and he has killed 10 times the number of lives that Al Quida took on that day.

So? He did much of that killing with US weapons and approval, and this war was not fought to "liberate" Iraqis. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And don't you forget that, lest you yourself need a reminder!

[QUOTE=Summerslacker]up until yesterday, i have not been suportive of the war in Iraq. i bought into all of the hype about "fighting for oil" and "no WMDs". but this weekend, a channel on tv was running various specials on 9/11, and i remembered why we are truely fighting, and it has nothing to do with oil or weapons of mass distruction. We are fighting for the people; Iraqies and American alike. Saddam Hussein was and evil on par with Osama. He butchered thousands of his own people just to further his power. He may not have aided Osama directly, but he supported his actions. Time and time again he refused to obey the UN. he was a threat. that is why we went to war.


Hallelujah!! I saw this T.V. program and have seen the light! I have SEEN the errors in my judgement! :rolleyes: You also probably went out and grabbed a big mac too after seeing the mcdonalds commercial right? I wish I could be as weak minded as you, life would be much simpler.

Although that is an important issue, I think the worse attrocity was that the Bush Administration, through promoting those lies, engaged in terrorised its own people.

I wouldn't have quite called them terrorists (all too often, it's used as a starting point for the rabid anti-America or anti-Bush crowd) but sure, that's pretty big, too. (And yes, I know that you can technically make a very strong case for Bush being a terrorist, but do we really need a semantic debate on terrorist vs. freedom fighter)

up until yesterday, i have not been suportive of the war in Iraq. i bought into all of the hype about "fighting for oil" and "no WMDs". but this weekend, a channel on tv was running various specials on 9/11, and i remembered why we are truely fighting, and it has nothing to do with oil or weapons of mass distruction. We are fighting for the people; Iraqies and American alike. Saddam Hussein was and evil on par with Osama. He butchered thousands of his own people just to further his power. He may not have aided Osama directly, but he supported his actions. Time and time again he refused to obey the UN. he was a threat. that is why we went to war.

Uh-huh. So you are claiming that because Saddam Hussein refused to obey the UN the US and its coalition allies embarked on an illegal war with the primary intention of forcing regime change in a foreign sovereign nation? That we were systematically lied to by self-serving schmucks who planted a smokescreen of WMD related falsehoods in order to justify their own actions?

So you say we went into Iraq because Saddam was evil. The problem with that arguement is even as evil as Saddam was he wasn't the most evil leader in the world. There were and are far more evil leaders in Africa and parts of Asia. And, Saddam had been unable to commit his evil since the first Gulf War. Which means he was controlled from committing evil without further war. So if we were after the most evil we should have gone somewhere else. So the evil of Saddam could not have been the reason. So that opens the question, "Why did we go after a leader who was controlled, but not after those leaders in Africa who weren't controlled and committing far worse evil?"

If you can answer that question, putting Saddam at the top of the list, then you have the reason for this war.

Bush went to war with Iraq to finish the job his daddy failed to do. Regardless of wheter Saddam supported Al Quaeda or not, bin Laden and his lackies are still on the loose, killing people in other parts of the world, and the US is making no move towards recifying to situation because Bush has blown all him dosh on an unjust war against Iraq instead. No WMD's found and no move towards ending terrorism on a global scale. What does the US have to show for the past four years?

Hehe. This is fun. Either it's a troll with a lot of potential or he actually means what he said. Don't know which is worse :p

edit: what Heron said.

Hehe. This is fun. Either it's a really gifted troll or he actually means what he said. Don't know which is worse :p

This doesn't seem very gifted to me, yet. It shows potential, though. :)

http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/4005g3.jpg
Never forget

Heh yes, I'd almost forgotten; 9/11 hadn't been mentioned for a good 10, maybe 12 minutes. And my attention span doesn't last longer than that!

Heh yes, I'd almost forgotten; 9/11 hadn't been mentioned for a good 10, maybe 12 minutes. And my attention span doesn't last longer than that!

You must be a member of the american voting public! :p

**runs the hell away**

He butchered thousands of his own people just to further his power. He may not have aided Osama directly, but he supported his actions. Time and time again he refused to obey the UN. he was a threat. that is why we went to war.

Every last thing you've said about the e-vils of Mr. Hussein can easily be applied to Mr. Bush. Frighteningly so.

And that is why you went to war. So as to keep your minds off the e-vil little thug who has ensconsced himself in the Oval Office.

Saddam Hussein was a suporter of terrorism, provide aid and comfort to the famalies of terrorists, and was a stain on the world. He deserved to be destroyed, his goverment deserved to be destroyed, and anyone who thinks like him needs to be destroyed.

He deserved to be destroyed, his goverment deserved to be destroyed, and anyone who thinks like him needs to be destroyed.
Then get thee hence and destroy yourself, post-haste. If you're absolutely serious, that is.

Saddam Hussein was a suporter of terrorism, provide aid and comfort to the famalies of terrorists, and was a stain on the world. He deserved to be destroyed, his goverment deserved to be destroyed, and anyone who thinks like him needs to be destroyed.

So - if one group of people thinks that another group of people are a 'stain on the world'.... it is legitimate to destroy them?

Bush became lost in the "Fog of War". He had a belief and refused anything that went against that belief. He also had no knowledge of the culture and beliefs of his enemy. So he stumbled in where thinking sane people like his father wouldn't go. Now he is stuck in a "tar baby" where the more he struggles the more stuck he gets. No one has a good way out, so he is following Nixon's Vietnamization formula. Let's pray that this will come out at least as good as Vietnam.

So - if one group of people thinks that another group of people are a 'stain on the world'.... it is legitimate to destroy them?
No, silly, this has nothing to do with personal opinion of one group of people, everyone agreed on that axis of evil thing and found it to be completely unbiased and 100% correct. :p

Saddam Hussein was a suporter of terrorism, provide aid and comfort to the famalies of terrorists, and was a stain on the world. He deserved to be destroyed, his goverment deserved to be destroyed, and anyone who thinks like him needs to be destroyed.

And the methods used to facilitate that, the lies and the deception, don't bother you?

Don't get me wrong, I think that Saddam's removal is (or should have been, anyway) ultimately a good thing, but the way it was accomplished and the pretext used were ridiculous and insulting.

What I'd like to forget is the constant political and social exploitation of 3,000 dead people whose only crime was going to work.

Stop it.

Now.

up until yesterday, i have not been suportive of the war in Iraq. i bought into all of the hype about "fighting for oil" and "no WMDs". but this weekend, a channel on tv was running various specials on 9/11, and i remembered why we are truely fighting, and it has nothing to do with oil or weapons of mass distruction. We are fighting for the people; Iraqies and American alike. Saddam Hussein was and evil on par with Osama. He butchered thousands of his own people just to further his power. He may not have aided Osama directly, but he supported his actions. Time and time again he refused to obey the UN. he was a threat. that is why we went to war.


http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/4005g3.jpg
Never forget

Really?

We went to war becuase he wouldnt comply with Resolution 1441 huh?
Cept, ultimately, he did.

Also funny, how the very organization whos resolution we used as an exscuse for invading, also didnt want us to do it.

Or....


Bush had an agenda since day one, and 9/11 was a convienent exscuse to invade Iraq, like he wanted to do since before he was elected.

You must be a member of the american voting public! :p

**runs the hell away**


*ahem*

Thatcher.

Falklands.

*runs*

*ahem*

Thatcher.

Falklands.

*runs*

Hey, screw you! Those are our pointless islands!!

:p

Hey, screw you! Those are our pointless islands!!

:p


Im just saying.

You guys elected her twice, didntcha?

What does that picture have to do with Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with the picture.
I think it's just a reminder that we Americans don't like bad people. People don't need to be directly linked to be put in the same category.

You know, kinda like when everyone compares Bush to Hitler, even though Bush and Hitler have NO links, and never met.

I think it's just a reminder that we Americans don't like bad people. People don't need to be directly linked to be put in the same category.

You know, kinda like when everyone compares Bush to Hitler, even though Bush and Hitler have NO links, and never met.

Funny how you can't seem to shove enough money up some bad people's asses, though.

Ah, let me guess. You hope that they'll eventually explode that way?

Funny how you can't seem to shove enough money up some bad people's asses, though.

Ah, let me guess. You hope that they'll eventually explode that way?
We do what's best for us, and as you can see, it's worked out ok so far. (super power, huge economy, 4.9% unemployment, DOW over 11,000 points)

Someone sounds jealous. :D

We do what's best for us, and as you can see, it's worked out ok so far. (super power, huge economy, 4.9% unemployment, DOW over 11,000 points)

Back to Clinton's America.

Hooray!

We do what's best for us, and as you can see, it's worked out ok so far. (super power, huge economy, 4.9% unemployment, DOW over 11,000 points)

Someone sounds jealous. :D

*lol
Dream on. If I wanted a piece of that, I'd just emmigrate over to you.
No, I was just pointing out that Saddam Hussein (just one example) got to be this oh so evil dictator with this scary arsenal simply because America thought it best at the time to finance his war with his neighbour.
And I do find it kind of annoying that you actually tried to get the international community to help you clean up your own mess in Iraq....

[QUOTE=Summerslacker]up until yesterday, i have not been suportive of the war in Iraq. i bought into all of the hype about "fighting for oil" and "no WMDs". but this weekend, a channel on tv was running various specials on 9/11, and i remembered why we are truely fighting, and it has nothing to do with oil or weapons of mass distruction. We are fighting for the people; Iraqies and American alike. Saddam Hussein was and evil on par with Osama. He butchered thousands of his own people just to further his power. He may not have aided Osama directly, but he supported his actions. Time and time again he refused to obey the UN. he was a threat. that is why we went to war.


He was not a threat. Yes, he did horrible things. And I agree that he should have died a long time ago. But I believe that we should clean up america before we clean up the world. How about we fix the whole "Old people freezing to death in their own homes" thing? How about we solve the tiny problem in that forgotten southern area where people used to live untill katrina? How about we end the entire two parties pretending to be different but ACTUALLY do the same thing... thing.
People aren't pissed about "War for oil" or "WMD's" anymore. We're pissed about corruption in every office in Washington DC. With exception to 3 people, every person on capital hill is out to skrew us. And they are. And people like you who only watch TV (Which is run by, OHMYGOSH!, those same people who started the war in Iraq) to get their news.

Listen to the radio.
Read the newspapers.
Go online.
Write letters to soldiers over there (they enjoy all the mail they get).
Get informed.

Saying that Saddam and Bin Laden worked together just show your complete ignorance about the situation in Middle East.

One the main reason behind the Iraq-Iran war (or at least, keeping it alive) was that, while Iran is a fundamentalist country, Iraq was a secular country.

Saddam Hussein was a very cruel dicator. But he was NOT a religious fanatic. He was even using his dictatorship to prevent demonstrations of religious fanatics. For Ossama Bin Laden, Saddam was as an evil non-believer as the US. And for Saddam, Bin Laden was more a friend of his hated Iran rival than anything else.

Bin Laden and Saddam working together is just complete bullshit, and cannot stand for one second if you know who are those people. That both are "evil" don't mean they work together.

And for the war in Iraq as a way to struggle against terrorism, it's just completly insane. Iraq is now the world major source of terrorists, and the Iraqi war a wonderful present given to Bin Laden for the anti-american hatred it creates. World terrorism was never as strong as it is now, THANKS to the war in Iraq.

And for Iraqi people, sure, Saddam was a cruel dictator. But look at the situation today ! Between 5000 and 6000 of people died from "terrorism" in Iraq in 2005, that's more than 9-11. Bombings are _daily_ there. And what about all the civilian killed by the war itself (you know, the nice bombing of Fallujah with chemical weapons by US army, and so on), or indirectly by the starvation, thurst, lack of hopistals, ... created by the war ?

Back to Clinton's America.

Hooray!
Hate to burst your bubble, but this is now Bush's America. Deal with it.

Do you know the difference? Bush did it through an attack on the towers, the dot-com buble burst, two wars, tax cuts,and record spending on poverty. Clinton just raised taxes, and said "there ya go America, aren't I the greatest?


By the way, did I mention that the stock market has gained a trillion (with a T) dollars in the last three years?

We do what's best for us, and as you can see, it's worked out ok so far. (super power, huge economy, 4.9% unemployment, DOW over 11,000 points)

Record national debt, record internal debt, most hated country in the world, lowest ranking among industrialised countries in human developement, huge illeteracy rate, very low education level, amazing number of poor people (including some who do have a job), lack of universal medical coverage, severe reduction of personal freedoms, massive pollution responsible for natural disasters, unability to fix your own dams like a third-world country, very high crime rate and prison rate (number of people in jail/number of total people), very low hourly productivity among industrialised countries, ...

Sure I'm jealous !

Record national debt, record internal debt, most hated country in the world, lowest ranking among industrialised countries in human developement, huge illeteracy rate, very low education level, amazing number of poor people (including some who do have a job), lack of universal medical coverage, severe reduction of personal freedoms, massive pollution responsible for natural disasters, unability to fix your own dams like a third-world country, very high crime rate and prison rate (number of people in jail/number of total people), very low hourly productivity among industrialised countries, ...

Sure I'm jealous !
I'll let your location speak for itself. Need some marshmellows?

http://static.flickr.com/26/59153397_d56f2cbc85_o.jpg

Hate to burst your bubble, but this is now Bush's America. Deal with it.

Do you know the difference? Bush did it through an attack on the towers, the dot-com buble burst, two wars, tax cuts,and record spending on poverty. Clinton just raised taxes, and said "there ya go America, aren't I the greatest?


By the way, did I mention that the stock market has gained a trillion (with a T) dollars in the last three years?

Uh huh.

When Clinton took over the White House and the economy was slipping (to the point of shutting down the Federal Government), it was Clinton's fault.

When Clinton was in his 2nd term as President, the country's prosperity was because of the foresight of Reaganomics coming to a head.

When Bush took over and the country's economy went to complete shit in the first year, it was Clinton's fault.

Now that things are starting to improve, it couldn't be because of Clintonian policy coming to a head thanks in no small part to Alan Greenspan's genius, it must somehow be Bush's doing.

You people need to make up your minds.

Bush is a fuck up. Always has been, always would be. I doubt you'd hire him to drywall your house. Deal with it.

And it ain't Bush's America. It's mine.

Apart from the fact that it's highly unlikely that anyone ever will forget those attrocities (at least while they remain relevant), isn't the bigger problem here that the Bush administration lied to the American people, and to the world, and has used their lies and people like you, who support what they do and don't give a damn about how they get it done, to circumvent the US constitution and undermine America around the world?

I think a bigger problem is that the administration linked 9/11 and the "war" in Iraq so often that people think it's true. If we really cared about that, we would still have our forces concentrated in Afghanistan...or maybe we'd be fighting Saudi Arabia, who funds terrorism more than Iraq could ever afford and most of the terrorists involved came from. Or in the interest of fighting terrorism, maybe we should be in Syria instead, their government IS a terrorist organization. Of all the places that we COULD be as a result of 9/11, Iraq is the dumbest place in the world for us to actually be. Saddam's "refusal" to comply with UN demands was nothing more than an attempt to save face. The inspectors who were there before the war said that the only weapons he had were the ones we knew he had(and that the US gave him, I might add)

I'll let your location speak for itself.

Wonderful ad hominem. Do you have something else to say ? Or are you as unable to think as Bush is ? (Unlike you, I do ask the question ;) )

The inspectors who were there before the war said that the only weapons he had were the ones we knew he had(and that the US gave him, I might add)

You forgot those long-range undeclared missiles ! You know, the ones which, when not equiped with a warhead, could go past the maximal authorised range. Saddam was able to send empty missiles up to 200 miles, 20 more than what he was allowed ! That was a serious threat to US security, wasn't it ?

Oh wait, Saddam accepted to destroy them too.

(so easy to make fun of those war supporters... :) )

Hate to burst your bubble, but this is now Bush's America. Deal with it.

Do you know the difference? Bush did it through an attack on the towers, the dot-com buble burst, two wars, tax cuts,and record spending on poverty. Clinton just raised taxes, and said "there ya go America, aren't I the greatest?


By the way, did I mention that the stock market has gained a trillion (with a T) dollars in the last three years?

1 - This is not Bush's America, much as he likes to act like it. America still belongs to the citizens.

2 - That's a horrible oversimplification that I don't care to go into tearing apart.

3 - Let's see...a trillion dollar gain in the last 3 years...how much did the stock market lose in the 2 years previous. Also, how much did the national debt gain in the same time span? Maybe you're old enough to not care about the national debt, but I'm not. Check out http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Saddam was able to send empty missiles up to 200 miles, 20 more than what he was allowed ! That was a serious threat to US security, wasn't it ?

Hey, now .... a tin can hurled at 500 m/s might just put a dent in your car!

We do what's best for us, and as you can see, it's worked out ok so far. (super power, huge economy, 4.9% unemployment, DOW over 11,000 points)

Someone sounds jealous. :D

I'm sure all governments do what's best for themselves or at least try to. The difference is that it does not always work out in the long run. America is slipping, the European Union is on the brink of being the largest superpower in the word. Nows your chance, visit Europe before Europe visits you. :D

I'm sure all governments do what's best for themselves or at least try to.

The "for themselves" being the key. In current USA governement, most people, including Bush himself, are buisnessmen working the oil/weapons sector. Guess why they made a _war_ in a country with _oil_. Guess why it's during their term that the world oil industry is making record profits (even french Total, which didn't get much in Irak, more than doubled its profits in 2005 compared to 2004, which was already an all-time high).

America is slipping, the European Union is on the brink of being the largest superpower in the word.

Saddly, European Union is doing most of the same stupidities than USA did. Sometimes in less worse, sure. But still. Just look at the awful proposed "constitution" which was planning to make Europe completly powerless economically, by destroying every single way the governement can control/help/support the economy, and by imposing neoliberal policies forever. Hopefully, we (french and netherlanders) said a clear NO to this text, but the current neoliberal orientation of European Union was not changed.

up until yesterday, i have not been suportive of the war in Iraq. i bought into all of the hype about "fighting for oil" and "no WMDs". but this weekend, a channel on tv was running various specials on 9/11, and i remembered why we are truely fighting, and it has nothing to do with oil or weapons of mass distruction.

http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/4005g3.jpg
Never forget
Amen.

What does that picture have to do with Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with the picture.


Yeah, you see, most americans STILL don't understand there is NO connection between Iraq and 911...Like my coworker...I hate that guy

Saddam Hussein was a suporter of terrorism, provide aid and comfort to the famalies of terrorists, and was a stain on the world. He deserved to be destroyed, his goverment deserved to be destroyed, and anyone who thinks like him needs to be destroyed.

And the United States has not supported dictators (including Saddam Hussein) and terrorists (including Osama bin Laden)? [It has] The United States (and many other nations) has had their hands in supporting many people that can be called terrorists. Under Hussein Iraq did rather well, and he had many supporters. It should be mentioned that even world leaders that are termed 'evil' (Such as Mao, and Stalin) can be popular and even lead their nations to better futures (Look at Russia during the civil war, Stalin at least made the nation more stable, Mao may have done a great deal of harm to his nation but look at China today compared with the China that Mao was born in).

I think that Mao, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Bush are all bad people. And not the best leaders but to say a leader is 'evil' or 'bad' as justification for a war (It is an international crime to start a war for a non-defensive reason and I don’t think that 'evil' is a good defense for the act of war) will make Bush one of the worst world leaders in my mind. Remember that Saddam was big in talk but when push came to shove he did cave (Look no WMDs found) to political pressure.

I think it's just a reminder that we Americans don't like bad people. People don't need to be directly linked to be put in the same category.

You know, kinda like when everyone compares Bush to Hitler, even though Bush and Hitler have NO links, and never met.


Actually there was a connection between Hitle and Bush...Bush's grandpappy got part of his fortune from helping out the nazis in the early 40s until the feds shut the operation down

(It is an international crime to start a war for a non-defensive reason and I don’t think that 'evil' is a good defense for the act of war).
Prove this, please.

Yeah, you see, most americans STILL don't understand there is NO connection between Iraq and 911...Like my coworker...I hate that guy

:p Coworker? Is that something a farmer uses? Just popping out to ork my cow.
Do we mean co-worker?

i get the impression that some people here think that Bush just sits in his oval office and thinks of new ways to piss people off.

That was my impression.

Goodness~~how to be concise when still wondering where to begin..?!

Bush's management of the American economy:

Bush inherited from Clinton an annual Federal Budget surplus of $100 billion; for the past two consecutive years, the annual Federal Budget deficit has exceeded $400 billion. Cumulatively, the US federal government has added nearly $1.5 trillion in principle debt (now totally more than $8 trillion) during the Bush administration. The effect of this turn-around in government spending and revenues has caused the US dollar to depreciate by about 30% against stable currencies during this time. This makes American citizens poorer by the same margin. Further, it is easy to predict that the US$ will continue to slide at least 20% further before the next president takes office. The Congressional Budget Office (not that we completely trust them, but nevertheless) has forecasted that annual budget deficits could continue to rise to $900 billion by 2010 if fiscal policies and priorities are not revised. It is important to notice the effects of these debts: the US federal government must repay the interest that accumulates annually on the principle debt; this amounts to more than $300 billion annually. This amount is paid to the Federal Reserve Bank as the cost of borrowing $8+ trillion. Annual collected tax receipts by the IRS exceed $2 trillion, meaning that approximately one in seven of those tax dollars goes immediately to pay interest to the bank, leaving the US government with 14% less revenue. That's essentially like the bank taking a 14% sales tax on every government dollar spent.

Bush's military endeavors:

The cost of America's global military operations is appoximately $1.3 billion daily. This is an increase of 50% over the Clinton administration's expenditures. There is a lot of discussion about whether Iraq, and the world, is a better place following Saddam's toppling. According to Noam Chomsky, Iraqi casualties since the beginning of the conflict top 100,000. Are those people better off? Or perhaps their families?? How about the dead or maimed US servicemen and their families? Did conquering Iraq reduce oil prices, or do exactly the opposite?


On another note almost entirely.... Oh, yeah, the Falklands...that's gotta be a scar on being British....but sorry, I'm American, and in the land of bigger, we've topped that.... Has anyone ever heard of the Marshall Islands? There is a story of forced relocations that ought to be noticed. Additionally, those atolls were subjected to the greatest nuclear explosions on Earth: more than a thousand times the force of the original atom bombs. The marshalls got hit with six of those. Is there cancer and other diseases among the Marshallese? Yup. Try to imagine.

Cheers

Im just saying.

You guys elected her twice, didntcha?

Thrice, pal, thrice.

Prove this, please.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html

http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/nurnberg.htm

up until yesterday, i have not been suportive of the war in Iraq. i bought into all of the hype about "fighting for oil" and "no WMDs". but this weekend, a channel on tv was running various specials on 9/11, and i remembered why we are truely fighting, and it has nothing to do with oil or weapons of mass distruction.

It has nothing to do with September 11th either

We are fighting for the people; Iraqies and American alike. Bush was and evil on par with Osama. He butchered thousands of his own people just to further his power. He may not have aided Osama directly, but he supported his actions. Time and time again he refused to obey the UN. he was a threat. that is why we went to war.

I just had to make a small correction to your post so that it was closer to the truth.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html
"Nothing in this Definition, and in particular article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination: nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration."

I guess "Potty5" is unable to respond on his own, so I'm sure he deeply appreciates your attempts to do so on his behalf. :p

Hey, screw you! Those are our pointless islands!!

:p

Hey! They were so not pointless!

We need those islands for... strategic... sheep... purposes.... :)

up until yesterday, i have not been suportive of the war in Iraq. i bought into all of the hype about "fighting for oil" and "no WMDs". but this weekend, a channel on tv was running various specials on 9/11, and i remembered why we are truely fighting, and it has nothing to do with oil or weapons of mass distruction. We are fighting for the people; Iraqies and American alike. Saddam Hussein was and evil on par with Osama. He butchered thousands of his own people just to further his power. He may not have aided Osama directly, but he supported his actions. Time and time again he refused to obey the UN. he was a threat. that is why we went to war.


http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/4005g3.jpg
Never forget

Funny how you tell us never to forget what Bush as forgot. He says he isn't looking for Osama, not a top priotity. And Osama caused the mess!

If Saddam was on par with Osama you have low expectations!
Osama was much worse. Osama causes a major terroriost on US mainland in New York. Saddam never went outside Iraq in killing US soldiers (he did shoot down our planes that flew over his terrority illegally).

He never supported Osama: he hated his guys and ever other fundamentalist out there. He was pretty atheist/secular.

He obeyed the UN: just not enough for US.

We went to War because after taking out Afgan, Bush was still running on adrenaline. So he went "where can I go?"; He chose this place probably due to parental reasons.

Iraq has in no way imoproved US's safety. More people from US are dying there than when we didn't go.
If we stayed in Afganistan only; the terrorist could just go there if we wanted them to come to us like we do in Iraq.

And all the World would mostly behind us. (and they were in Afganistan).

He obeyed the UN: just not enough for US.

I agree with you completely, all except for that. He did NOT obey the UN. He never permitted the inspectors free reign, as was demanded and agreed to by him. His recalcitrance was a serious problem, and the UN should have acted on it, but did not. They just kept moving deadlines around.

(1) The US government screwed up, and lied to the people.

(2) The UN has no intention of enforcing its resolutions and mandates with anything other than sanctions, and will only use those when its arm is twisted. Basically they just like to talk a lot, and talk is very cheap.

Those two statements are both true, and are completely unrelated issues. Yet each group uses the others' bad behavior to excuse its own.

The UN has no business publishing resolutions it can't or won't enforce. Period.

The US government has no business misleading its citizens. Period.

Both groups should be flogged with wet noodles.

i get the impression that some people here think that Bush just sits in his oval office and thinks of new ways to piss people off.

Nonsense, any fule knoes that he spends about 20% of his time on vacation away from the oval office and thinks of new ways to piss people off elsewhere.

Prove this, please.

It falls under "crimes against peace". What should be noted about international law is that there is no body to enforce many of the laws and there is little that can be done if a party breaks the law. Also it should be noted that it is not uncommon for international law, even in legally binding contracts, to be broken (when the acts of nations is concerned that is). [The invasion of Cuba during the Bay of Pigs was certainly illegal]

The law is in the UN charter, and was included in the Nuremberg Trials (Nuremberg Principles)

Principle VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Iraq did not attack us. It did not have WMD's (when we invaded). It was not a threat.

EDIT:
The UN is not and has not been a body that is capable of enforcing laws through the use of force. It even states in the charter that it does not want any force to be used.

Saddam and Osama are enemies. The hate is long standing. Saddam is a very 'western' and secular muslum leader. Osama is a radiacal religous muslum. The US goverment has ties to both (We supported Iraqs war with Iran, and Osamas war with the Russians in Afghanistan). In both cases we later made them our enemies. This is not new. The US was once a supporter of Ho Chi Minh, and we And we helped Stalin (many see Stalin as more ‘evil’ then Hitler) in WW2.

Hey! They were so not pointless!

We need those islands for... strategic... sheep... purposes.... :)

Are you welsh?

Whatever the reasons are - as the reminder suggests... the fact is that the Iraq war is illegal -

War for regime change is illegal.

It undermined U.N. power, and like the League Of Nations, it's role was undermined.

The governments of the world - those that supported the big american bully - lied to the public, created false evidence and got the peoples acceptance through paranoia and fear.

Whether the result of the war - the removal of a dictator - is right or not - the war itself was "wrong" (politically wrong atleast) for those reasons above.

Also, money - that i personally feel is "wasted" - that has gone into the war, had led to a cut in the water defences budget. Money that could have been spent protecting and preparing the people of the US from/for Katrina.

Both groups should be flogged with wet noodles.

Give This Man/Woman/Sheep/Superior Alien From Quauar a spork!

Wet noodles it is!