follow MP on Twitter


     Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally

    Change Page: < 12 | Showing page 2 of 2, messages 40 to 68 of 68
    Author Message
    Chad477

    • Total Posts : 1093
    • Joined: 10/3/2002
    • Location: Indiana
    • Status: offline
    RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 12:58 PM (permalink)


    ORIGINAL: SymphonyOfDreams

    Who has been issuing threats to other countries? who has the biggest weapons of mass destruction arsenal in the world? who' s preparing one large scale war against other countries? who sells the most amounts of weapons to potentially dangerous countries?

    I think Bush is 10x more insane than Saddam, does that give me the right to scream for a regime change in the US? hell no. So because you consider him a madman, does that give you the right to call for a regime change in a country that you dont live in? hell no.

    PEACE...




    Yeah...I totally forgot about Bush bein' insane. Remember that time a couple years ago he slaughtered about 1000 of his own people? Oh, wait...hahaha my bad. That was SADDAM. Dude, it' s all fine if you' re anti-US...but stop spredding your bullshit in here. You' re beginning to make me sick.

    As for the United States havin' more weapons of mass destruction than any country in the world, that is true, but we' re not gonna go out and sell them to a lunatic group of terrorists to use on innocent people. US policy in war is to get the job done with as little civilian casualties as possible. Do you think your boy Saddam uses that same policy?
     
    #40
      lifepulse

      • Total Posts : 377
      • Joined: 7/12/2002
      • Status: offline
      RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 1:04 PM (permalink)

      Man, get your shit straight. No guilt trip. All I' m saying is people shouldn' t be fucked over for the sake of making an extra dollar. This man happens to be an example of the casualties of greed. I' m not going to call you callous or anything else. This is the way I feel and I don' t think I' ll ever change that. I give a shit about people that don' t deserve to be kicked around by money-hungry corporations. As far as I am concerned, anyone that feels otherwise can go to Hell, fuck them and the horse they rode in on... etc.


      Again, this merely uses buzz words to invoke a sense of immorality or guilt where none should exist.

      1) He wasn' t " fucked over" unless you think the business actually owed him something other than they gave him, which, by actual contract, they must not have (otherwise he' d be taking them to court).

      2) " Greed" requires no causalities, and this guy isn' t dead (even though I realize you' re speaking metaphorically). What about those who refuse to recognize greed as a bad thing, as it appears you do? What' s your basis for saying greed is bad? (And if you' re actually going to reply, it would help if you clarified what you mean by " greed" .)

      3) Since this just happens to be " the way you feel" , well then, it' s utterly irrelevant. I don' t think your " feelings" are relevant to the reality of the situation. And why not? Well, what if I said I " feel" the exact opposite? Then we' d be at an unbreechable impasse. If you insist on having such " feelings" and telling the object of your feelings that they can " fuck themselves" , maybe you should have some actual *reasons* backing up your feelings. (And after all, maybe you actually do, but you certainly haven' t made them clear here. Rather, you' ve just stressed your " feelings" , while using the words that are supposed to indicate other people are bad.)

      -lifepulse
       
      #41
        SymphonyOfDreams

        • Total Posts : 9518
        • Joined: 5/18/2002
        • Location: Tropical Hell
        • Status: offline
        RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 1:30 PM (permalink)


        ORIGINAL: Chad477
        Yeah...I totally forgot about Bush bein' insane. Remember that time a couple years ago he slaughtered about 1000 of his own people? Oh, wait...hahaha my bad. That was SADDAM. Dude, it' s all fine if you' re anti-US...but stop spredding your bullshit in here. You' re beginning to make me sick.

        As for the United States havin' more weapons of mass destruction than any country in the world, that is true, but we' re not gonna go out and sell them to a lunatic group of terrorists to use on innocent people. US policy in war is to get the job done with as little civilian casualties as possible. Do you think your boy Saddam uses that same policy?


        1- Hmmm his own people? do you mean the kurds? make a reseach on the kurds...

        2- And I never said I was anti-US, what the hell is with this over sensitive patriots that everytime someone says something against Bush or his decitions they are automatically anti-US? shit, there' s almost 300 million americans and you are telling me that " Bush = US" ? if " Bush = US" then fuck yeah I' m anti-US; but since I doubt that' s the case, please keep your hurt patriotism to yourself.

        3- Oh and that last paragraph is funny... thanks for the laugh

        PEACE...
         
        #42
          Phylum Tardigrada

          • Total Posts : 435
          • Joined: 12/5/2002
          • Status: offline
          RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 1:33 PM (permalink)
          LuLu -


          when did this happen? Did I miss saddam knocking?


          1) Supporting Terrorists
          2) Shooting down American planes
          3) Violating hundreds of UN Policy' s he agreed to

          Besides that this really nice guy is committing Mass Murder, causing inhumane poverty and starvation.

          Lets not forget that Saddam invaded a country that we help to defend, remember Kuwait?

          SymphonyOfDreams -


          Who has been issuing threats to other countries? who has the biggest weapons of mass destruction arsenal in the world? who' s preparing one large scale war against other countries? who sells the most amounts of weapons to potentially dangerous countries?


          There is a difference between creating and using weapons to keep the peace as big brother on the block and using your weapons and military to invade countries for the purpose of expansionism, countries such as Japan, Germany, Vietnam, Iraq, Russia and many others... should I go on? Have you noticed that in the world there are fewer conquerors then there used to be even 20 years ago? Do you know the reason for that? The USA is the biggest factor, NATO is another. Please name a country that the United States entered with no reason, invaded, took control of it then claimed it for itself.


          I think Bush is 10x more insane than Saddam, does that give me the right to scream for a regime change in the US? hell no. So because you consider him a madman, does that give you the right to call for a regime change in a country that you dont live in? hell no.


          Are you totally off your rocker? The actions of the President are the actions of many Presidents before him in that he is doing his job dealing with the security of our nation which is dependant upon how all the other little boys and girls act.

          JayBeefC -


          Man, get your shit straight. No guilt trip. All I' m saying is people shouldn' t be fucked over for the sake of making an extra dollar. This man happens to be an example of the casualties of greed. I' m not going to call you callous or anything else. This is the way I feel and I don' t think I' ll ever change that. I give a shit about people that don' t deserve to be kicked around by money-hungry corporations. As far as I am concerned, anyone that feels otherwise can go to Hell, fuck them and the horse they rode in on... etc.


          Let me put this to you in different terms JayBeefC. Lets imagine that you have an income of $100.00 a week and each week you have four expenses and each one is $20.00. Now this leaves you roughly $80.00 per month after your expenses but the government taxes at least 50% of what ever is left so you end up with $40.00 per month. Now you want to expand what is available to you by buying a new in home stereo, the stereo costs $1,200.00, you can slowly save up for 300 months, or you can cut two of your expenses which even though they are helpful will allow you to put your money into something else.

          What am I trying to get across? Well, companies have the need to run their business, they have expenses, and they have needs to re-organize to improve the company and over time make it better. The purpose of the management of a company is to find ways to not only keep the company profitable, but to make sure its able to move quickly to face new issues and hopefully grow. If a company’s only purpose was to employ and keep as many employees as they possibly could they would be bloated and run themselves out of business.

          Companies are always hiring and letting go areas where they can save money, just like the common household should be ran... but to expect the average working tax payer to support someone who is unemployed for 1-2 years is simply ridiculous.



          < Message edited by Phylum Tardigrada -- 1/18/2003 1:34:18 PM >
          - Black Coffee Solutions for a world of Complex and Integrated Flavors.

          - Diverse Donut with a hole in the middle or genetically corrupt pastry... you decide!
          - Things aren' t always what they' re not.
           
          #43
            JayBeefC

            • Total Posts : 4463
            • Joined: 5/18/2002
            • Location: Madasfuckland
            • Status: offline
            RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 1:40 PM (permalink)

            ORIGINAL: lifepulse
            1) He wasn' t " fucked over" unless you think the business actually owed him something other than they gave him, which, by actual contract, they must not have (otherwise he' d be taking them to court).
            Maybe I over simplified my point there. I don' t think he was " owed" anything. But at the same time he did not " deserve" to be fired. There are many other details that you don' t know and I will not get into because I really don' t feel like sorting through all that stuff.


            2) " Greed" requires no causalities, and this guy isn' t dead (even though I realize you' re speaking metaphorically). What about those who refuse to recognize greed as a bad thing, as it appears you do? What' s your basis for saying greed is bad? (And if you' re actually going to reply, it would help if you clarified what you mean by " greed" .)
            My basis for my " greed is bad" position is simple. When people are after excessive amounts of money for themselves, people who aren' t get screwed. I' d be happy to have what I need and nothing more. I am grateful for all that I have beyond that, but I am more grateful for having gotten it without causing someone else to suffer.


            3) Since this just happens to be " the way you feel" , well then, it' s utterly irrelevant. I don' t think your " feelings" are relevant to the reality of the situation. And why not? Well, what if I said I " feel" the exact opposite? Then we' d be at an unbreechable impasse. If you insist on having such " feelings" and telling the object of your feelings that they can " fuck themselves" , maybe you should have some actual *reasons* backing up your feelings. (And after all, maybe you actually do, but you certainly haven' t made them clear here. Rather, you' ve just stressed your " feelings" , while using the words that are supposed to indicate other people are bad.)

            -lifepulse

            Cute.
            < Message edited by jaybeefc -- 1/19/2003 2:25:15 PM >
             
            #44
              JayBeefC

              • Total Posts : 4463
              • Joined: 5/18/2002
              • Location: Madasfuckland
              • Status: offline
              RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 1:46 PM (permalink)

              Let me put this to you in different terms JayBeefC. Lets imagine that you have an income of $100.00 a week and each week you have four expenses and each one is $20.00. Now this leaves you roughly $80.00 per month after your expenses but the government taxes at least 50% of what ever is left so you end up with $40.00 per month. Now you want to expand what is available to you by buying a new in home stereo, the stereo costs $1,200.00, you can slowly save up for 300 months, or you can cut two of your expenses which even though they are helpful will allow you to put your money into something else.

              What am I trying to get across? Well, companies have the need to run their business, they have expenses, and they have needs to re-organize to improve the company and over time make it better. The purpose of the management of a company is to find ways to not only keep the company profitable, but to make sure its able to move quickly to face new issues and hopefully grow. If a company’s only purpose was to employ and keep as many employees as they possibly could they would be bloated and run themselves out of business.

              Companies are always hiring and letting go areas where they can save money, just like the common household should be ran... but to expect the average working tax payer to support someone who is unemployed for 1-2 years is simply ridiculous.
              That is not what I was getting at in my first post on this topic. My point was Killing_Time' s statement sounded uninformed and just plain dumb also I wasn' t asking Captain Blue Collar Hard Work America to cover everyone else. Now I don' t know what the hell my point is and really don' t give a shit anymore. I think you and those who think like you are wrong (somewhat) and you think I am wrong. Neither side will budge. You win, I quit.
               
              #45
                jimboxxx

                • Total Posts : 2137
                • Joined: 12/12/2002
                • Location: California
                • Status: offline
                RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 2:01 PM (permalink)


                ORIGINAL: LuLu



                ORIGINAL: British

                The inspectors have already said repeatedly they would realistically need at least another year to actually inspect everything that needs to be inspected.

                Bush is implying that we don' t have that much time.

                Now, as stupid as we might think Bush is, the fact is he has access to far better intelligence and resources on the subject than any of us do.


                We were in a hurry to bomb the hell out of them with all this so called inteligence information. I' m tired of waiting, I want proof that Iraq has all these weapons of mass destruction. I want to be sure that GW isn' t fighting daddys war.

                We knew before going in, that they had weapons. We pressured the world to be on our side on this issue. Where are these weapons?


                Mama' s gonna make all of your nightmares come true,
                Mama' s gonna put all of her fears into you.

                -Roger Waters-
                To: Bush Jr.
                 
                #46
                  SymphonyOfDreams

                  • Total Posts : 9518
                  • Joined: 5/18/2002
                  • Location: Tropical Hell
                  • Status: offline
                  RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 2:22 PM (permalink)


                  ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada
                  SymphonyOfDreams -

                  There is a difference between creating and using weapons to keep the peace as big brother on the block and using your weapons and military to invade countries for the purpose of expansionism, countries such as Japan, Germany, Vietnam, Iraq, Russia and many others... should I go on? Have you noticed that in the world there are fewer conquerors then there used to be even 20 years ago? Do you know the reason for that? The USA is the biggest factor, NATO is another. Please name a country that the United States entered with no reason, invaded, took control of it then claimed it for itself.


                  There' s little to no difference between expansionism and regime changes, since 1945 things have changed considerable. Did you noticed that expansionism practically ended in 1945? you know what happend in 1945? and then in 1948?

                  Now, a country invading another to claim it as part of it' s territory its illegal, and would face serius consequences (wich explains China' s diplomatic war to avoid Taiwan being considered an independent country by the international community), instead, now you invade, put a weak regime that works as your puppet, move on and then call it a " democracy" , it' s less expensive than taking over the whole country and it gives you higher profits.

                  And what has killed expansionism? the cold war and then the strenght gained by the international community now led by the European Union. And of course, the economic problems that come with expansionism.

                  I have a question for you, why did the US entered Vietnam?


                  Are you totally off your rocker? The actions of the President are the actions of many Presidents before him in that he is doing his job dealing with the security of our nation which is dependant upon how all the other little boys and girls act.


                  Regime changes forced by a country into another is illegal in any way you see it. There is no possible excuse for a country to get involved in another country' s internal affairs. And who leads one country is INDEED an internal affair. If you dont like the leader in a country, well boohoo, the world isn' t your personal playground where you change stuff at your will. You dont like them, well close all economic, diplomatic and social exchange with that country and move on, but dont try to force them your ways and dont try to decide for them who should be their leader. That type of thinking and acting was the beginning of what we all now remember as 9/11.

                  PEACE...
                   
                  #47
                    Chad477

                    • Total Posts : 1093
                    • Joined: 10/3/2002
                    • Location: Indiana
                    • Status: offline
                    RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 2:56 PM (permalink)
                    Dominican...

                    It' s people like you who keep people like Saddam in power. You' re so blinded by your hate for Bush, you take the side of a fuckin' menace. OPEN YOUR EYES JUNIOR!!!! If you can' t see that Hussein is a threat, then you' re even dumber than I already think you are.

                     
                    #48
                      SymphonyOfDreams

                      • Total Posts : 9518
                      • Joined: 5/18/2002
                      • Location: Tropical Hell
                      • Status: offline
                      RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 3:17 PM (permalink)

                      ORIGINAL: Chad477

                      Dominican...

                      It' s people like you who keep people like Saddam in power. You' re so blinded by your hate for Bush, you take the side of a fuckin' menace. OPEN YOUR EYES JUNIOR!!!! If you can' t see that Hussein is a threat, then you' re even dumber than I already think you are.


                      Because, (apparently) unlike you, I try to look beyond all this crap. Today is Saddam Hussein, tomorrow it can be my country' s president, this " regime change because we want" thing sets a very disturbing precedent. I' m not taking sides here, because unlike Bush seems to think, the world is not " with us or against us" . I believe in respect for laws, in this case international laws/threaties, and I WILL NEVER support anyone who takes it uppon himself to go beyond decades of work to develop a relative world peace through international laws and start waging wars against " regimes" they dont feel comfortable with.

                      There are greater things at sake here, bigger than you, me, Bush, Saddam, the United States and Iraq. And I would really hate those things get jeopardized because of personal interests and/or money.

                      PEACE...
                      < Message edited by SymphonyOfDreams -- 1/18/2003 3:18:03 PM >
                       
                      #49
                        Mike Bahr

                        • Total Posts : 2040
                        • Joined: 8/7/2002
                        • Location: Phoenix, AZ
                        • Status: offline
                        RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 5:47 PM (permalink)

                        ORIGINAL: Chad477

                        Dominican...

                        It' s people like you who keep people like Saddam in power. You' re so blinded by your hate for Bush, you take the side of a fuckin' menace. OPEN YOUR EYES JUNIOR!!!! If you can' t see that Hussein is a threat, then you' re even dumber than I already think you are.




                        Don' t waste your breath. That guy hates Bush and isn' t going to change his mind any time soon. And he' s not going to say anything different...
                        -MPB/AZ- -Fidelitas Veritas Vindico-
                        Avatar pic: Lacey Chabert
                         
                        #50
                          MelodicJimm

                          • Total Posts : 16
                          • Joined: 1/16/2003
                          • Status: offline
                          RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 6:09 PM (permalink)

                          Because, (apparently) unlike you, I try to look beyond all this crap. Today is Saddam Hussein, tomorrow it can be my country' s president, this " regime change because we want" thing sets a very disturbing precedent. I' m not taking sides here, because unlike Bush seems to think, the world is not " with us or against us" . I believe in respect for laws, in this case international laws/threaties, and I WILL NEVER support anyone who takes it uppon himself to go beyond decades of work to develop a relative world peace through international laws and start waging wars against " regimes" they dont feel comfortable with.


                          I think it was you that mentioned, " Why did we go into Vietnam?" , or something like that.

                          Uh, I believe that' s because we didn' t want COMMUNISM spreading into America. And, originally, we didn' t send TROOPS into Vietnam, we sent ADVISORS. This whole idea of yours, of not getting rid of bad governments and regimes is a little strange to me.

                          Let' s say we have country X (America) and we have country Y (IRAQ). Country X has its own way of doing things while country Y is completely different. In fact, country Y has its own people murdered out in the streets, especially for religious reasons.

                          Now, let' s say country X does NOT condone this, but doesn' t feel the need to go in and spend tax money and casualties because, basically, it really doesn' t affect us. Then, let' s say, country X (AMERICA) discovers country Y has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION - or MIGHT have them. Hmmm, now that DOES affect country X because country Y could blow up country X - and every other f' ing country.

                          Therefore, your statements just sound weird to me. If a certain nation has not only the capability, but the balls, the hatred and the willingness (IRAQ) to blow up the world, then, uh, yeah, I think a " regime change" is needed. You know, this isn' t meant to be an insult, but people who make these comments are going to be pretty f' ing surprised when they wake up one morning and the country is obliterated by a nuclear bomb sent over by that Mr. Hussein...















                           
                          #51
                            Phylum Tardigrada

                            • Total Posts : 435
                            • Joined: 12/5/2002
                            • Status: offline
                            RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 7:02 PM (permalink)
                            He stood with youth joking and smiling telling stories of life and discussing future dreams... no; no weapons of mass destruction here, who knows is next if someone were to invade, could be your country next. After all true evil doesn' t exist....




                            - Black Coffee Solutions for a world of Complex and Integrated Flavors.

                            - Diverse Donut with a hole in the middle or genetically corrupt pastry... you decide!
                            - Things aren' t always what they' re not.
                             
                            #52
                              SymphonyOfDreams

                              • Total Posts : 9518
                              • Joined: 5/18/2002
                              • Location: Tropical Hell
                              • Status: offline
                              RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 7:17 PM (permalink)

                              ORIGINAL: MelodicJimm
                              I think it was you that mentioned, " Why did we go into Vietnam?" , or something like that.

                              Uh, I believe that' s because we didn' t want COMMUNISM spreading into America. And, originally, we didn' t send TROOPS into Vietnam, we sent ADVISORS. This whole idea of yours, of not getting rid of bad governments and regimes is a little strange to me.

                              Let' s say we have country X (America) and we have country Y (IRAQ). Country X has its own way of doing things while country Y is completely different. In fact, country Y has its own people murdered out in the streets, especially for religious reasons.

                              Now, let' s say country X does NOT condone this, but doesn' t feel the need to go in and spend tax money and casualties because, basically, it really doesn' t affect us. Then, let' s say, country X (AMERICA) discovers country Y has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION - or MIGHT have them. Hmmm, now that DOES affect country X because country Y could blow up country X - and every other f' ing country.

                              Therefore, your statements just sound weird to me. If a certain nation has not only the capability, but the balls, the hatred and the willingness (IRAQ) to blow up the world, then, uh, yeah, I think a " regime change" is needed. You know, this isn' t meant to be an insult, but people who make these comments are going to be pretty f' ing surprised when they wake up one morning and the country is obliterated by a nuclear bomb sent over by that Mr. Hussein...


                              Vietnam is in Asia, the US invaded and/or got involved Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Grenada to avoid communism in America. And again I say, who is the US or any other country to say what kind of regime should dominate another country? those are INTERNAL affairs. The world is not the US playground. In the past the excuse was communism, now it' s weapons of mass destruction, and those are still very weak excuses to invade an indepent nation.

                              I dont think it was me asking about Vietnam, but now that you say that... those almost 60,000 americans that died in the Vietnam war, where those " advisors" too?

                              And about your X vs Y problem... if you have a neighbohr and you find out that he has a gun, would you feel as your duty to sneak into his house and shoot him dead just because he has a gun?

                              But lets make it more dramatic, if you have a neighborh who hates your guts (and to make it even more dramatic) has threatnend to kill you (more drama) SEVERAL times and you find out he has a gun, would you sneak into his house and shoot him dead? and if you do... what do you think would happend to you?

                              I remember reading somewhere that 8 out of 10 people are capable of commiting murder at some point in their life. But being capable, having the means and the hatred does not mean we should put 8 out of 10 people in jail, does it?

                              In the mean time, Iraq (as the country with the military) does not have the means to make a direct attack on US soil, has never posed a direct threat to the US and wether they have WMD or not is yet to be proven. Remember that Iraq wasn' t the one asking for a war with the US, it was Bush the first to start banging the drums of war and started issuing threats against other countries.

                              Now... is Iraq a threat to it' s neighborhs? how many Arab countries are supporting the attack? ahh that' s right...

                              Dont be surprised of people who just dont believe in " preemptive attacks" and " regime changes" , because I believe (or wish to believe) that there' s people out there who know the rules, and know where their rights begins and where they end.

                              PEACE...
                               
                              #53
                                Chad477

                                • Total Posts : 1093
                                • Joined: 10/3/2002
                                • Location: Indiana
                                • Status: offline
                                RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Saturday, January 18, 2003 7:30 PM (permalink)
                                You' re right...Iraq doesn' t have the means to bring a " conventional" war on US soil. But they do have the means to supply some al qaeda prick with a nuclear weapon. Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp? Iraq supports terrorism. You don' t think that they would sell nukes to terrorist groups? You can' t be that naive. Apparently you don' t understand how fucked up these islamic radicals are. They do not care about their own lives. They will die in a second' s notice for one of their insane causes. If 9/11 or these daily suicide bombings in Israel aren' t telling you anything, then you need some serious help.

                                And as for your psychotic hatred of Bush...what did you say back in ' 98 when Clinton was firing missiles at Iraq? I' ll bet you were all for it then huh?
                                 
                                #54
                                  Deepshred

                                  • Total Posts : 5
                                  • Joined: 12/23/2002
                                  • Status: offline
                                  RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:15 AM (permalink)
                                  It' s amazing how many people hate Bush for reasons that have nothing to do with his ability to lead a country....he' s not perfect, he had a drinking problem and if i remember correctly, was pulled over for drunk driving...how did he respond to these accusations, they' re all true, he didn' t LIE about it (as opposed to other presidents i know...)and the man' s been sober ever since and his latest doctor' s report showed him to be in perfect physical health for his age...why is this important, because it' s a sign of the inner strength and conviction of a man...giving up drinking is hard, admitting to something that could potentially destroy your campaign is hard (he could have just said that he had " never swallowed" or maybe that would have been monica lewinsky' s excuse!)In comparison to the wacko over in Iraq, Bush is one million times the man Saddam is, he shows integrity and honor, something that hasn' t been in the white house for about a decade!
                                  It' s easy to say that the US shouldn' t get involved with Iraq, but what would' ve happened in WWII had the US not gotten involved, England might have fallen to the Nazi' s and it might have been too late for the US to do anything about it...we needed to stop a tyranical madman then and one needs to be stopped now. It comes down, I think to an issue of morality, what' s right and wrong....if Saddam didn' t have anything, then why were inspectors denied access all during the Clinton era, perhaps Saddam has no respect for the UN and rightfully so, they' ve poved themselves to be completely useless, they' re strength is the US and other allied nations. If there' s no muscle to force Saddam to disclose his weapons and disarm, then why should he, obviously he' s hiding something and I agree with Bush all the way! Stop this guy now before he proves he has nukes with a mushroom cloud! His father started this, Clinton never followed through, and now it' s up to Bush to finish the job....i gotta wonder, if Clinton had done his job, would 9/11 have happened?
                                   
                                  #55
                                    Chad477

                                    • Total Posts : 1093
                                    • Joined: 10/3/2002
                                    • Location: Indiana
                                    • Status: offline
                                    RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:33 AM (permalink)


                                    ORIGINAL: Deepshred

                                    It' s amazing how many people hate Bush for reasons that have nothing to do with his ability to lead a country....he' s not perfect, he had a drinking problem and if i remember correctly, was pulled over for drunk driving...how did he respond to these accusations, they' re all true, he didn' t LIE about it (as opposed to other presidents i know...)and the man' s been sober ever since and his latest doctor' s report showed him to be in perfect physical health for his age...why is this important, because it' s a sign of the inner strength and conviction of a man...giving up drinking is hard, admitting to something that could potentially destroy your campaign is hard (he could have just said that he had " never swallowed" or maybe that would have been monica lewinsky' s excuse!)In comparison to the wacko over in Iraq, Bush is one million times the man Saddam is, he shows integrity and honor, something that hasn' t been in the white house for about a decade!
                                    It' s easy to say that the US shouldn' t get involved with Iraq, but what would' ve happened in WWII had the US not gotten involved, England might have fallen to the Nazi' s and it might have been too late for the US to do anything about it...we needed to stop a tyranical madman then and one needs to be stopped now. It comes down, I think to an issue of morality, what' s right and wrong....if Saddam didn' t have anything, then why were inspectors denied access all during the Clinton era, perhaps Saddam has no respect for the UN and rightfully so, they' ve poved themselves to be completely useless, they' re strength is the US and other allied nations. If there' s no muscle to force Saddam to disclose his weapons and disarm, then why should he, obviously he' s hiding something and I agree with Bush all the way! Stop this guy now before he proves he has nukes with a mushroom cloud! His father started this, Clinton never followed through, and now it' s up to Bush to finish the job....i gotta wonder, if Clinton had done his job, would 9/11 have happened?


                                    Well put. I agree 100%.
                                     
                                    #56
                                      Drummintoad

                                      • Total Posts : 1818
                                      • Joined: 5/18/2002
                                      • Location: Phoenix Az
                                      • Status: offline
                                      RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 3:04 AM (permalink)

                                      i gotta wonder, if Clinton had done his job, would 9/11 have happened?


                                      hmm this is original.

                                      It seems to me that the 9/11 attacks have helped Bush more than al queda. If I wanted people to rally around my cause, I would attack them, then blame someone else, then lead the fight to defend them.........

                                      Yeah this sounds like bullshit to me too. Just like ALL of the republican/democrat rhetoric floating around this bowl.

                                      Clinton liked blowjobs. Bush likes bombing people. Which is the greater of two evils?

                                      For the record--I think we should take over Iraq just for the oil, not for some bullshit idea of protection. I wonder how much the oil companies help Bush jr' s campaign?


                                      I never trust a man who has more answers than questions.[:' (]
                                       
                                      #57
                                        Phylum Tardigrada

                                        • Total Posts : 435
                                        • Joined: 12/5/2002
                                        • Status: offline
                                        RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 5:41 AM (permalink)
                                        SymphonyOfDreams -


                                        Vietnam is in Asia, the US invaded and/or got involved Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Grenada to avoid communism in America. And again I say, who is the US or any other country to say what kind of regime should dominate another country? those are INTERNAL affairs. The world is not the US playground. In the past the excuse was communism, now it' s weapons of mass destruction, and those are still very weak excuses to invade an indepent nation.


                                        Alright lets respond to some of this tripe. I find it funny you just start tossing out country' s we' ve had problems with or have had problems themselves with out actually giving reasons why. Lets start with your Country.


                                        Dominican Republic


                                        The 1960s was the height of the Cold War. The world issues clouded many newspapers and into took place in our history; Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, The North Korean infiltration of the ROK, The Pueblo Incident and perhaps the least well known, The US intervention into the Dominican Republic.

                                        Since the assassination of the dictator Truijillo in 1961, the situation in the had Dominican was unsure. When Truijllo' s family tried to take control of the island following his death, Kennedy deployed the US Navy that November . He made it clear that it was time for Democracy in the Dominican. The Trujillo' s were finished. Elections were held for the first time with leftist reformista Juan Bosch winning in a political race that involving 29 parties. He was soon overthrown by a civilian junta called the Triumvirate in 1963. Soon after this government crushed a 100 strong Castroist movement in the mountains that was launched against it by the end of the year. The next year a violent struggle erupted into the streets between two political parties. The first signs of trouble came when Triumvirate strongman Emilio de los Santos, resigned on December 23, to be replaced by Donald Reid Cabral.

                                        All this changed on April 24th a coup broke out. The National Palace in Santo Domingo was surrounded as was the Government Radio Station. By 3:00 in the afternoon Santo Domingo' s streets were filled with looting and lawlessness. Cascos Blancos and the CEFEA tanks briefly retook the Radio Station held by communist agitators to maintain order but; they were simply outnumbered by mobs of (momentarily) unarmed civilians. The revolutionists called them selves Constitutionalists, the movement was a mix of lower ranking officers (and therefore younger), political opposition groups, and the mob on the streets. Some truly hoped that violence would lead to a restoration of 1963 constitution and democracy. Others were communists who had temporarily joined in with the reformers. However the largest group were mere rioters who took advantage of the weapons being passed out on street corners in the capitol and took up looting with the protection of their new firearms. These weapons passed out to the populace by the rebel forces would prove a problem for Dominicans long after 1965.
                                        On the 25th David Reid Cabral resigned and left the National Palace to the rebels. Rafael Molina Ureña was installed as their President. The Presidential Guard fell over to the Rebel side. However, the ever loyal CEFEA units slipped out and back to San Isidro suffering only a single wound and and only a few tanks. The Loyalist forces struck back the following day lead by Elías Wessín y Wessín who as commander of the CEFEA was in charge. Army tanks and aircraft bombed the Palace and a rebel areas. Losing a plane to ground fire. The dictator Reid Cabral had asked for US intervention that same day. The US ambassadors decided to wait it out. However, The influence of the Communist faction worried US President LBJ, while the Constitutionalists had control of the former military men the communist factions continued to arm the people and had control over these mobs. The loyalists failure to re-capture the capitol left many in Washington wondering if the Constitutionalists would attack other areas throughout the country as looting continued in the capitol. Johnson put the 82nd and Marines on full-alert and sent a fleet of of 41 vessels to blockade the island.

                                        Johnson made it clear his intention was to avoid " another Cuba." Twice in the last 6 years communist insurgencies had tried to take the country. Most notably in 1959 when Castro landed a a small guerrilla force too " liberate" the island. It was quickly crushed.. Even Truijillo had flirted with the Soviet Union going so far as to allow Soviet radio broadcasts. Yet the humanitarian and historical concern cannot be over looked, as it has been by many historians. The country had been embroiled in conflict for much of it' s post-Trujillo period and had made little reform. Many Dominicans were starving to death and out of work In the rural countryside the conditions were so bad that some girls were being sold into slavery.
                                        Historically the Dominican Republic was a strategic interest of the United States. In the post-Civil War era politicians had conspired to make the nation a part of the US. The US intervention in 1965 was actually the fourth in some 58 years the Marines had intervened to protect Americans and their property. As a result the Dominican Intervention unfolded not as the Cold War' s Dominican crisis but; rather as the opposite. Nevertheless the operation unfolded like a classic modern US operation limited rapidly deployed combined forces achieved their objectives with minimum casualties. Also on the table was Johnson' s personal history and the legacy of Kennedy' s role in the affairs of the Caribbean. Johnson had personally visited the country in 1963 to attend the inauguration of Juan Bosch. In Johnson' s mind the Dominican was sooner or later going to fall into the communist camp unless something was done while that movement was still weak.

                                        On April 27th, USS Boxer, an aircraft carrier evacuated 1,000 American civilians from the island. These Civilians were quickly airlifted to navy ships offshore. Some Marines landed on this day but; were unarmed and only served to help evacuate Americans. At the Hotel Embajador rebel groups lined up Americans and fired rounds over there heads and fired randomly into the hotel' s windows. The Loyalists P-51 had silenced the rebel' s radio station and the Navy returned to the Loyalist fold with a deadly barrage. Seeing the end Molina Urena abdicated and the true Constitutionalistas were leaving in droves. The Loyalist launched a raid across the Duarte Bridge which met with a group they described as " The defenders that fought like cornered bulls." . Santo Domingo' s position in the free world seemed unsure as communist groups continued to gain control during this fighting while the moderate military leaders slipped away. The looting and shooting continued.
                                        On the 28th President Johnson ordered the Marines onto Santo Domingo at 6:53 PM this time with guns at the ready. Earlier that day the Cascos Blancos and a sizable weapons catch at the Ozama barracks fell that day to the rebels as a result the Loyalists asked for American Intervention. On that same day the US, El Salvadoran, and Ecuadorian Embassies had been fired upon by snipers. Johnson now armed with a legal pre-text sent the remaining Marines ashore. On the 30th, the 82nd Airborne pushed out San Isisdro and moved toward the capitol where it assaulted the Duarte bridge and captured a six city block radius on the other side. The Loyalists guarding the bridge were told to leave by the 82nd to avoid further fighting. The Marines occupied a 9 mile OAS declared International Security Zone and took 2 KIA and 8 wounded.

                                        Gen. Palmer took charge of all ground forces ashore on May 1st and faced a still dangerous situation as the two US forces were still badly separated and the Marines could only be effectively supplied by helicopter or by landing craft. Meanwhile at San Isisdro 90% of America' s airlift capacity was be used in the operation. Thus on the night of May 2nd with OAS and American approval the ambitious operation Blue Chip was launched. The 82nd established a four-bloc corridor from their position at the Duarte Bridge to the ISZ. Loyalist forces were told to wear their caps sideways or backwards to avoid being confused as rebels. Three battalions secured the area by leap-frogging through each other. Only one casualty occurred, due solely friendly fire.
                                        Now the US forces could maintain contact but; they could also prevent the various Dominican groups from fighting each other and isolated 80% of the rebels in the downtown area. The new corridor also allowed the US to distribute food and water to the populace more effectively as well as give medical assistance. The next few days saw an expansion of the perimeter and little activity on either side. The US Army' s forces were restricted in their military behaviors and limited in weaponry. The Dominicans were allowed to pass freely through the checkpoints unarmed, with the exception of Loyalista police. However the rebels were discovered to e traveling under the checkpoints in the sewers so soon the Army quickly moved to place observers on this system.
                                        Throughout early May the Army expanded out of Santo Domingo to the countryside where special forces groups food, water and medical attention were delivered by helicopter to remote villages. They also monitored for possible Cuban infiltration(1) The powerful Radio Santo Domingo continued to broadcast rebel propaganda. On May 13th it was bombed by the Loyalistas. However they were so sloppy that a US Marine and some Loyalistas were accidentally hit. Angered over their wounded comrade Marines, Constitutionalistas, and even some Loyalistas returned fire at the 5 P-51s. Their combined efforts downed one of the WWII -era planes. From then until the 20th the CEFEA conducted operations against the Rebel areas above the corridor eventually capturing the Radio Santo Domingo. More importantly in the diplomatic sense was the creation of the Government of National Reconstruction or GRN. This government combined some Constitituionalists with some members of the Junta established on the 28th along with a large body of " neutrals" and included a large number of popular Dominican politicians. This body showed signs of actually lasting and the US officially severed ties with the Loyalistas and stopped them from conducting air force or naval operations against the rebels. President Lyndon Johnson was furious about the unhindered Loyalista rampage against the Radio Station in the North of the city and ordered all support to the Loyalistas to stop the US was to be officially neutral. More importantly by this time US force commitment had peaked on May 10th with 22,500 by the end of the month the number was dropped as they were replaced by the IAPFers.




                                        By June 6th the US forces were down to 12,000 and no Marines remained on the island. By mid-June the IAPF had occupied the National Palace and patrolled the communications " corridor." There had been small firefights as the rebels probed their lines all leading up to an expected confrontation on June 14th a national holiday. The predicated rebel offensive was one day late; it started 7:30 AM on June 15th. The Corridor bore the brunt of the offensive. Initially the US troops did not return fire but; soon they were fully engaged in the action as the Latin American Brigade and the 82nd Airborne fought hard. The rebels had carefully place HMGs, Mortars and even their tanks with 37mm Cannon. The US forces pushed south and captured 56 square city blocks and including some valuable positions(2) in house-to-house fighting but; they were ordered by Gen. Bruce Palmer to halt and reduce their position by 16 blocks. After all the US was officially neutral in the civil war. The fighting continued until the next day, however as Caaman~o lacked full control of the rebels. The Latin Americans had not advanced but; merely returned fire for which they had suffered 5 Brazilian WIA. The US had lost 5 killed and 36 wounded. The rebels had lost many of there best men suffering around 100 casualties. For the next few days they continued to probe the Brazilian positions with rock throwing and gunfire. But; the Brazilians kept calm. Operations were stagnant during the rest of the summer.
                                        By early fall Gen. Wessin finally left the country and CEFEA ceased to threaten democracy. Bosch returned and tried to continue to organize an underground rebellion with little success. On October 15th the perimeter came down and many ex-soldier rebels had voluntarily abandoned their positions in the capitol for a special camp were they could be re-integrated into the army. About 1200 armed rebels remained in the capitol at this time and firefights occasionally broke-out. On the 25th of October the IAPF pushed on from their positions into the heart of downtown. The psychological effect of the M48 Pattons crushed morale and without a casualty, the rebel' s nation within a nation had been crushed. By the end of the month the Tanks had been withdrawn and life was being returned to normal in the capitol. Small fire-fights between groups of armed Dominicans continued to develop but; peace was returning. On June 1st, 1966 the national elections were held right on schedule and soon the IAPF the first Inter-American peacekeeping force of it' s kind was disbanded.

                                        (1) The CIA revealed to Johnson that the month before the coup about 100 Cuban, Chinese or Soviet trained agitators had entered the Dominican Republic. Doubling the number of such individuals in the country.
                                        (2) including the oldest museum in the Americas and the hospital july tanks go home

                                        Several things were accomplished by the intervention:
                                        1) no communist government took hold.
                                        2) The OAS was strengthened.
                                        3) Precedent of Latin America working together was established
                                        4) Democracy was returned to the nation again.
                                        5) Humanitarian aid was distributed to the poverty stricken Dominicans.


                                        So, now I ask you SymphonyOfDreams, can you please explain to me how your country is worse off from US involvement? Do you think your country would have been better had we not gotten involved? Are you still going to list your country as some sort of negative propaganda ploy to push Anti-American military views? Or are you going to state anything I' ve posted is untrue? Read all this, answer all this, and when it' s over I will then address the next " Country" on your list proving to you that in FACT the United States involvement in World Affairs has not only improved the quality of life for many Nations but also in FACT creates a safer free world.


                                        < Message edited by Phylum Tardigrada -- 1/19/2003 5:43:29 AM >
                                        - Black Coffee Solutions for a world of Complex and Integrated Flavors.

                                        - Diverse Donut with a hole in the middle or genetically corrupt pastry... you decide!
                                        - Things aren' t always what they' re not.
                                         
                                        #58
                                          lifepulse

                                          • Total Posts : 377
                                          • Joined: 7/12/2002
                                          • Status: offline
                                          RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 10:20 AM (permalink)

                                          And again I say, who is the US or any other country to say what kind of regime should dominate another country? those are INTERNAL affairs. The world is not the US playground. In the past the excuse was communism, now it' s weapons of mass destruction, and those are still very weak excuses to invade an indepent nation.


                                          Symphony, I hate to bash you, as we' ve had some good conversations together-- but I must say the above argument is one of the most ridiculous things I' ve ever heard!

                                          If you accept the above, you may as well accept the following: " The police have no right getting involved in stopping one man from murdering another (or, to make the analogy more precise, they can' t even stop a man that is pointing a gun at another man, a man he' s made clear in the past he does not like). After all, the murder is an INTERNAL affair between the two people, and doesn' t involve the police" . Doesn' t sound too slick, does it?

                                          Now the question is, Why should the police get involved (in my analogy) and stop the murderer? One simply answer-- because human beings have natural rights, the most important (from which all others derive) being the right to life.

                                          This means that there can be no such thing as " the right to kill other people" . A right is a principle that must apply to all people equally, and therefore, if one person is relying on their right to life, they cannot reasonably deprive another person of that same right.

                                          So how does this apply to Iraq (or any other question of regime change, for that matter)? Again, you have to reduce the issue to a question of rights. Basically, the U.S. has the *RIGHT* to invade any country that fundamentally violates the rights of its citizens. Such violations would include mass involuntary servitude (i.e., slavery, such as in any communist country, like China), and mass murder (as in WWII Germany, modern China or Korea or (insert nearly any modern Middle Eastern country here that has dictatorial power over its citizens)).

                                          Why do we have the right to invade said countries and institute a " regime change" (or anything else we felt like putting in the old leaders' place, such as our own leaders)? For the same reason the policeman can interrupt the muderer from killing his victim-- because human rights are real, they are not social conventions or arbitrary policies made up by mass votes. Thus a human being' s rights do not end and begin at geographic borders, or exist within one nation and not in another. If you think otherwise, then it would seem you have to concede there is no such thing as natural rights that transcend geographic borders. And if you admit there are no natural rights, then I don' t see how you can complain of our violating Sadaam' s non-existent-rights by instituting a " regime change" .

                                          Now don' t get me wrong-- I' m not saying we *should* invade any country that is violating its citizens' rights. Whether we choose to or not to invade, I think, should depend on our own self-interest. (For instance, I would *not* recommend that the U.S. invade China right now, as it would be devastating to the U.S. both financially and in terms of lives lost, whether or not we actually won.) But I *would* say that we have the *right* to invade China right now, whether or not we choose to exercise that right (again, for reasons of self-interest).

                                          Thus the whole argument of " weapons of mass destruction" is ultimately irrelevant to this whole issue. Sure, finding such weapons gives us a better reason to go into Iraq and kick some butt, but it' s certainly not necessary. The very fact that Hussein is a dictatorial thug that denies his own citizens' rights is enough for us to treat him however we please.

                                          -lifepulse
                                           
                                          #59
                                            patrik1982

                                            • Total Posts : 31
                                            • Joined: 5/18/2002
                                            • Location: Linköping, Sweden
                                            • Status: offline
                                            RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 10:37 AM (permalink)
                                            I wonder who' s the biggest threat to world peace, Bush or Saddam...
                                             
                                            #60
                                              SymphonyOfDreams

                                              • Total Posts : 9518
                                              • Joined: 5/18/2002
                                              • Location: Tropical Hell
                                              • Status: offline
                                              RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 10:42 AM (permalink)


                                              ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada
                                              Several things were accomplished by the intervention:
                                              1) no communist government took hold.
                                              2) The OAS was strengthened.
                                              3) Precedent of Latin America working together was established
                                              4) Democracy was returned to the nation again.
                                              5) Humanitarian aid was distributed to the poverty stricken Dominicans.


                                              So, now I ask you SymphonyOfDreams, can you please explain to me how your country is worse off from US involvement? Do you think your country would have been better had we not gotten involved? Are you still going to list your country as some sort of negative propaganda ploy to push Anti-American military views? Or are you going to state anything I' ve posted is untrue? Read all this, answer all this, and when it' s over I will then address the next " Country" on your list proving to you that in FACT the United States involvement in World Affairs has not only improved the quality of life for many Nations but also in FACT creates a safer free world.


                                              The problems with essays is how vital information gets sucked in between unnecesary info, for example it doesn' t say is what happend in the next 12 years and what happend in the 1966 elections. And it seems to have porpousely just gone over the reason why the 1965 revolution, and it also tags names such as Loyalist and Constitutionals without giving any reference as to why they where who they where and what where they fighting for.

                                              But explaining to you all that, its besides the point, because you already proved what I wanted to say... the US gets involved in other nation' s internal affairs, and no matter how you look it at, THAT is illegal.

                                              An occupied nation or one with a puppet regime is never a " free" nation.

                                              Had the Constitutionalist won and the US invation would' ve never happend... would' ve been better for us? I dont know, because it didn' t happend and we where never allowed to have that opportunity, but I' m pretty sure that Balaguer would' ve never won the 1966 elections (won with fraud by the way) and thousands of people wouldn' t have died in the 12 years of persecution that followed.

                                              Anyways, the Constitutionalist where fighting to bring the elected president Juan Bosch back in power and take it away from the military Triumvirate that where looking to form a long lasting dictatorship. The Loyalist where the forces that where loyal to the Triumvirate dictatorship. Now read your essay, it bearly mentions anything about Coronel Caamaño and/or Juan Bosch involvement in the revolution, wich is vital when ever you are gonna talk about the 1965 revolution, because... after all, they where the reason it started!

                                              But again, all this is besides the point. The US can invade a country and make it the " paradise in earth" and it would still be illegal. But if you want to change subject and argue if the US helps a country when it invades it... perfect, lets argue that.

                                              And Chad... the US has sold weapons to terrorists before, but I dont think I would have to explain all that to you, would I?. Everytime someone has tried to link Saddam with Al Qaeda they' ve always made an ass of themselves, it' s easy to talk and talk without no real evidence behind your afirmations, but actually proving it is something not even the CIA has been able to do, in the mean time I suggest you to look for another presime to defend your argument with. Oh, and I was against all invasions led by Clinton too, but out of all presidents in the US I' ve read and study about, he was the one with my favorite foreign affairs program, you cant even imagine all the stuff he tried to push through, but Bush has been able to destroy 8 years of work in 2 years... need any list?

                                              PEACE...
                                               
                                              #61
                                                Drummintoad

                                                • Total Posts : 1818
                                                • Joined: 5/18/2002
                                                • Location: Phoenix Az
                                                • Status: offline
                                                RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 10:42 AM (permalink)

                                                The very fact that Hussein is a dictatorial thug that denies his own citizens' rights is enough for us to treat him however we please.


                                                So if my neighbor hits his wife or kids I could/should shoot him?
                                                The answer is no-we hire/elect police and judges to deal with it, as fairly as possible.

                                                The U.N. is the (free)world' s governing organization. If we sidestep the rest of the world, then we are more like vigilantes than good neighbors.


                                                That quote is just plain scary, if you think about it....
                                                < Message edited by drummintoad -- 1/19/2003 9:15:56 AM >
                                                 
                                                #62
                                                  SymphonyOfDreams

                                                  • Total Posts : 9518
                                                  • Joined: 5/18/2002
                                                  • Location: Tropical Hell
                                                  • Status: offline
                                                  RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:04 AM (permalink)


                                                  ORIGINAL: lifepulse
                                                  Symphony, I hate to bash you, as we' ve had some good conversations together-- but I must say the above argument is one of the most ridiculous things I' ve ever heard!

                                                  If you accept the above, you may as well accept the following: " The police have no right getting involved in stopping one man from murdering another (or, to make the analogy more precise, they can' t even stop a man that is pointing a gun at another man, a man he' s made clear in the past he does not like). After all, the murder is an INTERNAL affair between the two people, and doesn' t involve the police" . Doesn' t sound too slick, does it?

                                                  Now the question is, Why should the police get involved (in my analogy) and stop the murderer? One simply answer-- because human beings have natural rights, the most important (from which all others derive) being the right to life.

                                                  This means that there can be no such thing as " the right to kill other people" . A right is a principle that must apply to all people equally, and therefore, if one person is relying on their right to life, they cannot reasonably deprive another person of that same right.

                                                  So how does this apply to Iraq (or any other question of regime change, for that matter)? Again, you have to reduce the issue to a question of rights. Basically, the U.S. has the *RIGHT* to invade any country that fundamentally violates the rights of its citizens. Such violations would include mass involuntary servitude (i.e., slavery, such as in any communist country, like China), and mass murder (as in WWII Germany, modern China or Korea or (insert nearly any modern Middle Eastern country here that has dictatorial power over its citizens)).

                                                  Why do we have the right to invade said countries and institute a " regime change" (or anything else we felt like putting in the old leaders' place, such as our own leaders)? For the same reason the policeman can interrupt the muderer from killing his victim-- because human rights are real, they are not social conventions or arbitrary policies made up by mass votes. Thus a human being' s rights do not end and begin at geographic borders, or exist within one nation and not in another. If you think otherwise, then it would seem you have to concede there is no such thing as natural rights that transcend geographic borders. And if you admit there are no natural rights, then I don' t see how you can complain of our violating Sadaam' s non-existent-rights by instituting a " regime change" .

                                                  Now don' t get me wrong-- I' m not saying we *should* invade any country that is violating its citizens' rights. Whether we choose to or not to invade, I think, should depend on our own self-interest. (For instance, I would *not* recommend that the U.S. invade China right now, as it would be devastating to the U.S. both financially and in terms of lives lost, whether or not we actually won.) But I *would* say that we have the *right* to invade China right now, whether or not we choose to exercise that right (again, for reasons of self-interest).

                                                  Thus the whole argument of " weapons of mass destruction" is ultimately irrelevant to this whole issue. Sure, finding such weapons gives us a better reason to go into Iraq and kick some butt, but it' s certainly not necessary. The very fact that Hussein is a dictatorial thug that denies his own citizens' rights is enough for us to treat him however we please.

                                                  -lifepulse


                                                  Because it' s different. You see, the Police gets involved when some gets murdered, because it' s a matter of public order. But when we take that to a higher level, a state level, although there is no such thing as " International Public Order" or nothing similar to the term " public order" , I do believe that we are moving in that direction. But that " international public order" has nothing to do with the internal affairs of one nation.

                                                  When one State invades or attacks another, in that case (and only that case) the " international public order" is hurt, wich would force the UN Security Counsil (and not the United States) to take measures for the agretion to end.

                                                  But none of that applies when it involves internal affairs:

                                                  Charter Of The United Nations

                                                  Article 2

                                                  The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

                                                  1- The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

                                                  2- All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

                                                  3- All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

                                                  4- All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

                                                  5- All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

                                                  6- The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

                                                  7- Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

                                                  You see numeral 7?

                                                  Now if you want to read Chapter VII go here http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

                                                  The leader of a nation can be Satan himself, and if he doesn' t pose any direct threat of invasion or agression to another nation, then any military action against him is illegal.

                                                  Wether letting a madman run a dictatorship and kill his people is right or wrong, well if I had the right to decide there wouldn' t be any dictatorships in the world in the first place. But, invading a nation just because, sets a VERY dangerous precedent, and like I said, right now it' s a dictatorship in Iraq, tomorrow it can be a democracy in Venezuela, or Brazil or Ecuador, so that' s why I choose not to support an invation like that.

                                                  PEACE...
                                                   
                                                  #63
                                                    lifepulse

                                                    • Total Posts : 377
                                                    • Joined: 7/12/2002
                                                    • Status: offline
                                                    RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:11 PM (permalink)

                                                    So if my neighbor hits his wife or kids I could/should shoot him? The answer is no-we hire/elect police and judges to deal with it, as fairly as possible.

                                                    The U.N. is the (free)world' s governing organization. If we sidestep the rest of the world, then we are more like vigilantes than good neighbors.


                                                    That quote is just plain scary, if you think about it....


                                                    This is a valid point, but I don' t think it bears out in this instance. Yes, within the U.S. (and most civilized nations), we put the protection of our rights in the hands of elected officials (the executive branches and the judicial branches when it comes to cases like fraud). But the problem is there is not yet any kind of international police force. I' ll grant that I' m not as up on my U.N. reading as it seems others here are (such as Symphony). But in order the U.S. to place its rights to deal with other nations in the hands of the U.N., the U.N. would have to meet a few conditions which I don' t think it has met yet:

                                                    1. It would have to have a great military than any of the nations involved therein. This is precisely how the executive branch within any sovereign nation works. If the U.S. police, FBI, coast guard, et al., didn' t have more physical power (in terms of guns and weapons) than any given criminal group (like the Mafia), then it would be laughable at best. It is only because the police and other combined legitimate forces outweigh the illegal ones that the legitimate ones can properly act as defenders of citizens' rights. Until the U.N. is at that stage, I don' t think power can be put in their hands.

                                                    2. Even more important here is the point about rights being actual facts of reality, not social conventions or anything of the sort. Thus if the U.N. is recognizing nations that do not themselves recognize their citizens' rights-- and this would include *any nation that is communist, fascist, Nazi, theocratic, or run by a non-rights respecting dictator*-- then the U.N. is granting rights (i.e., recognizing the sovereignty of dictators) to people that are denying rights (i.e., the rights of their people). And if this is the case, then the U.N. is just acting in comission with the dictators, not actually doing anything to stop them. Now as I said, I don' t pretend to be very well-versed on the policies of the U.N., but from the little I' ve read, they recognize plenty of nations whose governments fundamentally ignore their citizens' rights-- China and Syria come instantly to mind. Thus, insofar as the U.N. is dealing with, or at least not condemning and badmouthing, dictatorial nations, we have every right-- and a moral obligation-- to completely disregard the U.N., and treat them as merely another thug organization. Insofar as they act like the U.S. and Syria are even within the same galaxy of political relations, more or less on approximately the same level, they are only aiding and abetting the murder of innocent people, not protecting anybody' s rights.

                                                    So to answer your analogy Drumintoad, if we sidestep the U.N. in a situation like that, we are being more like the good citizen that recognizes that the policeman is in cahoots with the mob, and then decides to say, " Screw calling the policeman, seeing that he' s in bed with the mob, I' ll take out this muderer myself." The concept " vigilante" does not apply in that situation.

                                                    Finally, Symphony, the same above point would apply to what you posted. It really doesn' t matter what the U.N. types on a sheet of paper, unless it contains, " And we will stand strongly against, with whatever military force we might have, any nation that denies its citizens' rights on a fundamental level" . Of course, they don' t do this, and in fact recognize numerous nations that are led by bloodthirsty tyrants.

                                                    Thus the point again that rights are not mere arbitrary conventions that can be dictated by the U.N. or anybody else. Coming up with a fancy " charter" is irrelevant. Imagine the mob (or some organization that recognized the mob' s legitimacy and pretended to be the world police) came up with a doctrine saying, " The mob is all right, and you have to recognize that and not act against them. And by the way, we have no real power to enforce this, other than turning the mob against you." Would you feel compelled to recognize such a ludicrous stance? I certainly would not, and don' t think anybody else-- including the U.S.-- should either.

                                                    (BTW, for anybody who cares, please note that I am *not* a Republican, conservative, or Bush-supporter. I think Bush is a pansy, and that he should have long ago turned the entire Middle East, excepting Israel, into a giant sheet of glass with a few H-bombs. But that' s just me.)

                                                    -lifepulse
                                                     
                                                    #64
                                                      Phylum Tardigrada

                                                      • Total Posts : 435
                                                      • Joined: 12/5/2002
                                                      • Status: offline
                                                      RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 1:16 PM (permalink)

                                                      Had the Constitutionalist won and the US invation would' ve never happend... would' ve been better for us? I dont know, because it didn' t happend and we where never allowed to have that opportunity, but I' m pretty sure that Balaguer would' ve never won the 1966 elections (won with fraud by the way) and thousands of people wouldn' t have died in the 12 years of persecution that followed.


                                                      The Constitutionalists wouldn' t have won because Cuba and Russia were aiding the fight against them. You speak of the 12 years after, well thats a shame but so is the reality of the riots, the looting, the mass murder, the bombings, the starvation, and the tearing up into multiple factions that your country took. The US brought an eventual stability to your Country and distributed food and medical assistance to your people, where would you be now had this not happened?


                                                      Oh, and I was against all invasions led by Clinton too, but out of all presidents in the US I' ve read and study about, he was the one with my favorite foreign affairs program, you cant even imagine all the stuff he tried to push through, but Bush has been able to destroy 8 years of work in 2 years... need any list?


                                                      8 years of Clinton allowed 8 years of terrorism to kill and injust hundreds of Americans and citizens of other countries. Clinton made deals with countries by giving them technology and resources and then allowed them to break all agreements. Clinton was also responsible for giving China nuclear technology. The Clinton Administration also accepted donations from drug lords, terrorists, and communists. Clinton was a liar, a thief, and had Former President Bush been in office an additional four years our military wouldn' t have been fleeced into near worthless working order endangering not only our own nation but the stability of the world.


                                                      The leader of a nation can be Satan himself, and if he doesn' t pose any direct threat of invasion or agression to another nation, then any military action against him is illegal.


                                                      You keep calling everything you disagree with illegal when it' s not. Saddam Hussein has endangered and killed Americans and broke UN Resolutions for the entire 8 years of the Clinton Administration.
                                                      - Black Coffee Solutions for a world of Complex and Integrated Flavors.

                                                      - Diverse Donut with a hole in the middle or genetically corrupt pastry... you decide!
                                                      - Things aren' t always what they' re not.
                                                       
                                                      #65
                                                        SymphonyOfDreams

                                                        • Total Posts : 9518
                                                        • Joined: 5/18/2002
                                                        • Location: Tropical Hell
                                                        • Status: offline
                                                        RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 1:50 PM (permalink)


                                                        ORIGINAL: lifepulse
                                                        Finally, Symphony, the same above point would apply to what you posted. It really doesn' t matter what the U.N. types on a sheet of paper, unless it contains, " And we will stand strongly against, with whatever military force we might have, any nation that denies its citizens' rights on a fundamental level" . Of course, they don' t do this, and in fact recognize numerous nations that are led by bloodthirsty tyrants.

                                                        Thus the point again that rights are not mere arbitrary conventions that can be dictated by the U.N. or anybody else. Coming up with a fancy " charter" is irrelevant. Imagine the mob (or some organization that recognized the mob' s legitimacy and pretended to be the world police) came up with a doctrine saying, " The mob is all right, and you have to recognize that and not act against them. And by the way, we have no real power to enforce this, other than turning the mob against you." Would you feel compelled to recognize such a ludicrous stance? I certainly would not, and don' t think anybody else-- including the U.S.-- should either.

                                                        -lifepulse


                                                        The UN isn' t an organization that came out of thin air, in fact the United States was one of the main countries that pushed for it' s creation. The charter, the rules, the organization itself is the result of a contract in wich the US is one of the parties involved. And because their signature is still there, they should respect everything they contracted. You are a strong supporter of capitalism, could you imagine what would happend if no one respected the contracts they signed? you know that any system would colapse.

                                                        Of course, the US can just pull out of the UN if they dont want to follow the rules they signed to. Being a member of the UN is not mandatory.

                                                        All countries that are accepted inside the UN cant be kicked out just because they are led by dictators, there' s an international rule (that exists well before the UN) that states that when you recognize an independent nation, that recognition cant be revoked.

                                                        As you can read in the Article 2 of the Charter, there isn' t much the UN can do against a nation for it' s internal affairs, other than control any help that nation may get from UN related organizations and issue a public codemn to their actions against Human Rights. They cant invade the country and they cant force other countries to make an embargo to that country.

                                                        Remember, the UN relates to states and not their leaders, they dont give sovereignity to Saddam, they give sovereignity to Iraq, wich are two completely different things.

                                                        Phylum, on the contrary Cuba and Russia where aiding the fight against the Loyalist, wich led to the Loyalist asking for the intervention of the US. And like I say, I cant really say what would' ve happend in my country had the US not done this, we didn' t got to a real social estability up until 1994, could it ended up being worse? I dont know, because it never happend.

                                                        And here' s one of my main problems with the current US administration, 2001 the back out of the Antibalistic Misiles Threaty, en 2001 they where the only nation to oppose a global agreement to control el international market of illegal small weapons, the US is one of the few countries who opposes the Threaty on the International Criminal Court, it' s one of the few nations that wont sign the Threaty on Land Mines, they back out of the Kyoto Protocol, the US refused to be in the conversations in the Development and Economic Cooperation to avoid offshore fiscal pardises, refused to join 123 nations in the threaty to ban anti-personal land mines in 2001, the US was the only country that opposed the Plan for financiating renewable (sp?) energy. And in other administrations they have backout of threaties against Nuclear Weapons Test and Women' s Rights and Children Rights and many other threaties.

                                                        And I dont say it' s illegal because I disagree with it, I say it' s illegal because there' s a signed contract all parties should obey and if they dont... then it' s illegal.

                                                        PEACE...
                                                         
                                                        #66
                                                          Phylum Tardigrada

                                                          • Total Posts : 435
                                                          • Joined: 12/5/2002
                                                          • Status: offline
                                                          RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:32 PM (permalink)

                                                          Phylum, on the contrary Cuba and Russia where aiding the fight against the Loyalist, wich led to the Loyalist asking for the intervention of the US. And like I say, I cant really say what would' ve happend in my country had the US not done this, we didn' t got to a real social estability up until 1994, could it ended up being worse? I dont know, because it never happend.


                                                          If you don' t know that then why are you listing it as something horrible that the US did? Are you suggesting that Cuba and the Former Soviet Union only had your countries best interests at heart? The communists were allowed to spread their tripe across your airwaves trying to bring people under the influence of Communist Ideals. Want to talk about expansionism look at the Soviet Union which has not only invaded and held territory in multiple regions, but captured multiple countries forcing the peoples there to bow down the Soviets, that' s real occupation.


                                                          And here' s one of my main problems with the current US administration, 2001 the back out of the Antibalistic Misiles Threaty, en 2001 they where the only nation to oppose a global agreement to control el international market of illegal small weapons, the US is one of the few countries who opposes the Threaty on the International Criminal Court, it' s one of the few nations that wont sign the Threaty on Land Mines, they back out of the Kyoto Protocol, the US refused to be in the conversations in the Development and Economic Cooperation to avoid offshore fiscal pardises, refused to join 123 nations in the threaty to ban anti-personal land mines in 2001, the US was the only country that opposed the Plan for financiating renewable (sp?) energy. And in other administrations they have backout of threaties against Nuclear Weapons Test and Women' s Rights and Children Rights and many other threaties.


                                                          Are you saying " Threaties" to try and be sarcastic or what? The spelling is Treaty if you aren' t sure.

                                                          In any event, you obviously don' t understand what the Anti-Ballistic Treaty was if you are so upset about it. First the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was signed and agreed upon by the Former Soviet Union and the United States of America, note I said FORMER Soviet Union as in THEY NO LONGER EXIST. Why would you bother to even abide by a treaty with a country that no longer exists? So if the Dominican Republic had an agreement with a neighboring country not to fish the waters in a certain area even though those waters are in YOUR SPACE, and that neighboring country has a revolution and becomes 4 completely new countries you would expect your Country to still not fish in those waters even if it endangered your own country' s welfare?

                                                          What is the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty:


                                                          In the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems the United States and the Soviet Union agree that each may have only two ABM deployment areas,1 so restricted and so located that they cannot provide a nationwide ABM defense or become the basis for developing one. Each country thus leaves unchallenged the penetration capability of the others retaliatory missile forces.


                                                          Yeah, totally horrible for us to agree to a treaty that restricts SELF DEFENSE with a country that NO LONGER EXISTS. If this is your biggest gripe then you need to find some new ones.
                                                          - Black Coffee Solutions for a world of Complex and Integrated Flavors.

                                                          - Diverse Donut with a hole in the middle or genetically corrupt pastry... you decide!
                                                          - Things aren' t always what they' re not.
                                                           
                                                          #67
                                                            Hoggle.

                                                            • Total Posts : 872
                                                            • Joined: 11/1/2002
                                                            • Location: East of Baldock and Ashford
                                                            • Status: offline
                                                            RE: Inspectors find stuff in Iraq finally Sunday, January 19, 2003 4:20 PM (permalink)
                                                            I think I saw some of you guys at the protests this weekend:



                                                            my fruityloop beat - miserable failure
                                                            "Give me immortality, or give me death."
                                                             
                                                            #68
                                                              Online Bookmarks Sharing: Share/Bookmark
                                                              Change Page: < 12 | Showing page 2 of 2, messages 40 to 68 of 68

                                                              Jump to:

                                                              Current active users

                                                              There are 0 members and 1 guests.

                                                              Icon Legend and Permission

                                                              • New Messages
                                                              • No New Messages
                                                              • Hot Topic w/ New Messages
                                                              • Hot Topic w/o New Messages
                                                              • Locked w/ New Messages
                                                              • Locked w/o New Messages
                                                              • Read Message
                                                              • Post New Thread
                                                              • Reply to message
                                                              • Post New Poll
                                                              • Submit Vote
                                                              • Post reward post
                                                              • Delete my own posts
                                                              • Delete my own threads
                                                              • Rate post

                                                              All Design and Content are Copyright mikeportnoy.com and NOT for use on other web sites.
                                                              website credits
                                                              2000-2012 ASPPlayground.NET Forum Version 3.8