78 replies · 1,166 views
Originally posted by Tristan Yes a net loss, especially because we went through a recession and 9/11...
and bush's economic solutions to 9/11 made me want to dig up FDR myself and prop him up with popsicle sticks. encourage outsourcing overseas! cut taxes while increase defense spending!
Originally posted by The Man Up North How come the american administration DID NOT WAIT for the U.N. inspectors to finish their work before making a unilateral and illegal military intervention into the sovereign country of Irak ?
Check your history again...we did. The UN pulled out on it's own after receiving little or no cooperation from Saddam's engineers.
This is NOOOOOO secret folks.
Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS > Originally posted by Tristan> 9/11...
Regardless of where the WTC was at while it was attacked, any attack on the so-called 'Financial Center' of the universe would have a major negative impact on said country's economy you silly nilly! Bush just happened the Pres of the country the WTC was in at the time. I can pretty much guaranteee that if the WTC was in the UK, the same set of probs would be in place there with job loss/gains and the economy...Gulf War III not-withstanding of course.
C'mon folks...quit listening to the spin!! READ and check the facts! (That's a word many don't understand anymore, facts, but you can do it.) READ=Top to bottom, left to right. Tylenol for headaches and Advil for cramps....and may God, Allah or whatever have mercy on your soul.
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by The Man Up North>
Ooh the skies are falling, and this country will be destroyed! Nearly 2 million jobs created in the past year, and when energy prices begin to straighten out, then expect the economy to rebound even stronger, and then we will pay our debts.
Oh yes, JOB CREATION... all these unemployed young men and women who have been recruited to serve in the armed forces, they are part of the job creation... and they were all sent to Irak to get killed.
Great job W. 
Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS > Originally posted by The Man Up North> How come the american administration DID NOT WAIT for the U.N. inspectors to finish their work before making a unilateral and illegal military intervention into the sovereign country of Irak ?> >
Check your history again...we did. The UN pulled out on it's own after receiving little or no cooperation from Saddam's engineers.
This is NOOOOOO secret folks.
That doesn't change the fact that by international law, any military intervention into a sovereign country needs the prior approval of the United Nations, which the United States did not have when they broke into the houses of dozens of innocents in Bagdad and humiliated the population there.
Don't get me wrong (I sound like Chrissie Hynde!) -- I'm as happy as anyone that Saddam is gone, but has the United States respected international law, they would have built an international coalition that would have made a much more efficient intervention in Irak -- because, as John Kerry often states, this intervention would have also had to prepare a plan for PEACE, what George W. Bush did not have, hence the current chaos.
Originally posted by The Man Up North > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > Originally posted by The Man Up North> >
Ooh the skies are falling, and this country will be destroyed! Nearly 2 million jobs created in the past year, and when energy prices begin to straighten out, then expect the economy to rebound even stronger, and then we will pay our debts.
Oh yes, JOB CREATION... all these unemployed young men and women who have been recruited to serve in the armed forces, they are part of the job creation... and they were all sent to Irak to get killed.
Great job W.
Your opinion yes...but a poor one that I, as a long standing member of the US Armed Forces, reject.
These people volunteered for that job knowing full well that this could and would happen. The war in Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom long before that caused many to leave their homes and families behind to do just that! VOLUNTEER!
To think that one comes into the Armed Forces to merely get some $$ for college is just plain stoopid and if that is what they thought they were getting...then I've no sympathy for them.
What's the old saying..."You don't put on a condom unless you're gonna f@ck!" ? 
GW didn't create the system by which millions of our young brothers and sisters enlist in the military by a long shot, so please don't presume to suggest that he has. Remember...these volunteers take an oath to a piece of paper, the Constitution, NOT to GW or any other person.
Jeff hit the nail on the head, how long should the UN give Saddam? Saddam destroyed the UN.
And by the way, who other than the US has question Sudan about their latest genocide? And who will intervene?
Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS > Originally posted by The Man Up North> > > > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by The Man Up North> > >
Ooh the skies are falling, and this country will be destroyed! Nearly 2 million jobs created in the past year, and when energy prices begin to straighten out, then expect the economy to rebound even stronger, and then we will pay our debts.
Oh yes, JOB CREATION... all these unemployed young men and women who have been recruited to serve in the armed forces, they are part of the job creation... and they were all sent to Irak to get killed.
Great job W.
Your opinion yes...but a poor one that I, as a long standing member of the US Armed Forces, reject.
These people volunteered for that job knowing full well that this could and would happen. The war in Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom long before that caused many to leave their homes and families behind to do just that! VOLUNTEER!
To think that one comes into the Armed Forces to merely get some $$ for college is just plain stoopid and if that is what they thought they were getting...then I've no sympathy for them.
What's the old saying..."You don't put on a condom unless you're gonna f@ck!" ?
GW didn't create the system by which millions of our young brothers and sisters enlist in the military by a long shot, so please don't presume to suggest that he has. Remember...these volunteers take an oath to a piece of paper, the Constitution, NOT to GW or any other person.
Exactly William, and that's also why some of them are getting screwed because, you know that better than anyone here, as a military, you will obey orders coming from your line of authority, the last one being of course the president in his quality of Commander in Chief. In this case, you are tied by Dubya's decisions, whatever your opinion about it.
Now in Irak's case, I've heard/read many comments from soldiers who were wondering why they were sent in Irak in the first place, how the people was misled, how the intervention was not well prepared, and how ugly it turned. In Fahrenheit 9/11, there's even one guy who decided not to go back to Irak, despite an order to do so, facing Court Martial, and who decided to go vocal about everything he saw while he was there. Not a nice picture, I'm telling you.
As a military, I guess you should be happy that your government is raising the military budget. But does that make the whole actions ok? I don't think so.
I'd be very curious to read your opinion about your troops being sent to Irak the way they were sent and the way the operations have been handled.
Also, knowing that you were in Japan for a while, is there any chance you might yourself be sent to Irak or Afghanistan anytime soon ?
What makes a person still believe Irak has/had WMD after all UN inspections and after all american research by themselves?
A lie defended till death as truth some moment convince weak minds - I can't remember who said this one. What maybe proves that Bush & CO are smarter then they appear to be; the fools are their followers...
PS: look at Saddam's arse, I think it's there!
Ahhh... and the kind of lie that depreciate the intelligence: if u don't believe them, they make u look idiot and anti-patriot...
Have you read Dr. Blix's reports to the UN?
Have you seen any of the reports on Saddam?
As I said in an earlier posts, no WMDs have been found, but Saddam's people could not come up with proof that they had destroyed ALL of the WMDs. That comes straight from Dr. Blix's reports.
I need to do some research, because I was a little young when it happened, but just what did the United Nations do when the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan? Did anything happen besides the west staying home from the Moscow Olympiad in 1980?
Originally posted by Jeff Have you read Dr. Blix's reports to the UN?Have you seen any of the reports on Saddam?As I said in an earlier posts, no WMDs have been found, but Saddam's people could not come up with proof that they had destroyed ALL of the WMDs. That comes straight from Dr. Blix's reports.I need to do some research, because I was a little young when it happened, but just what did the United Nations do when the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan? Did anything happen besides the west staying home from the Moscow Olympiad in 1980?
In Afghanistan the US helpd to arm the Mujahadin fighters who fought off the Soviets. these fundamentalist Islamic groups evolved into Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. But hell we turned the tide against the Soviets.
Jeff -- at that time, international law and international politics were nothing like they are today. Cold war was at its peak, nuclear proliferation was at its peak, and there were more dictators in the world than you could count them.
Since then, the Berlin wall has fallen, the Soviet Union crumbled, the regime in Moscow is much more democratic than it was and the country is no longer communist. As a matter of fact, I think only North Korea and Cuba still are today. Nikolaï Ceaucescu was killed and Romania is now looking into entering the European Community. That Community is now probably the second biggest change in the World after the fall of communism, since the first 15 countries all decided to use the same currency. A new economic and political force is now existing and it is lowly but surely counterbalancing the power of the United States.
So all of that being said, I don't think you can compare what is going on today with what has been done in the past. Quite the contrary actually -- we should remember the past in order not to make the same mistakes that were done in the past. So this is why the United Nations are so important.
Also, since then, the United Nations, as an organization, grew and got more power over time. The concept of the RULE OF LAW and of the HUMAN RIGHTS made incredible progress. The interventions made in Bosnia and in several africans country are a good example of that.
Sebsy, you make some valid points.
I've gone digging about, and the UN did NOTHING when the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan. Well, that might not be the right word, the UN did pass a few resolution condemning the invasion, but did nothing that really mattered.
Now to say that you can't compare the two, well, I'm going to have to disagree. The Soviets went into Afghanistan for the express reason of making sure that a Communist regime was put into power, and who knows what their intentions were going to be from that point? Dubya ,and his small band of worldwide warriors, went in with the assumption that Saddam either had WMDs (well, they didn't assume he had them, they said he had them), and that he was seeking to expand his programs for WMDs. Now we all know that no WMDs have been found, but Blix himself said that we have no PROOF that all of Saddam's outlawed toys had, indeed, been destroyed.
I am still wondering just how long you think we should have given Saddam to comply with all the provisions of the Cease fire from the first conflict. Saddam thought that he needed WMDs, to use against Iran, if that country ever decided to take up arms against Iraq again, and against the Zionist regime in Israel. Saddam had grand illusions of himself as being the great Arab leader against the west, and, specifically, against the Jews. He wanted to set up a great Arab state, something like the Ottoman Empire. Even if he never got his hands on these weapons, the fact remains that he wanted them, and, if left in power, would have continued trying to get them.
He had to be deposed. The problem the nobody really understood, was how some Muslims would react. There is a large faction of Muslims that believe they must establish The Islamic State (check this site out http://www.islamic-state.org/ It makes for some interesting, and informative, reading! This particular faction does not believe that the west can be worked with. Governments that do not believe in the supreme laws of Allah are not true governments. The closest thing to a true government in their eyes, seems to be what is going on in Iran.
Saddam had to be stopped, but I don't think any of us quite realized just what the West would be going up against if we went in. I think the best case scenario is to get the elections in Iraq done with, even if they don't elect a puppet, and then everybody that isn't a Muslim to get the hell out, unless they are wanted by the Iraqis. Show that we are not in Iraq just to install another puppet regime. But, we have to make sure the West does not repeat the mistakes that were made in Afghanistan after the Soviets were expelled. The West abandoned Afghanistan. Don't abandon Iraq. Give them the money to actually rebuild. But let the Iraqis do the work, or, at the very least, other Muslims. I can't say that I blame any Arab for distrusting the West. They have been manipulated, now is the time to show that we actually mean to try and live in harmony.
Have I confused you all enough?
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Jeff> > > Have you read Dr. Blix's reports to the UN?> > > Have you seen any of the reports on Saddam?> > > As I said in an earlier posts, no WMDs have been found, but Saddam's people could not come up with proof that they had destroyed ALL of the WMDs. That comes straight from Dr. Blix's reports.> > > I need to do some research, because I was a little young when it happened, but just what did the United Nations do when the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan? Did anything happen besides the west staying home from the Moscow Olympiad in 1980?> > >
In Afghanistan the US helpd to arm the Mujahadin fighters who fought off the Soviets. these fundamentalist Islamic groups evolved into Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. But hell we turned the tide against the Soviets.
And, my young friend, I am not trying to belittle you, but I asked what did the United Nations do...which was a big bunch of NOTHING!
Hehe, I side-stepped the UN point to make a point about the US and the Mujahadin. It would take a bit of research to see if the UN did anything of any worth in that situation.
The UN Security Council is composed of 5 permanent members: The US, the UK, France, China, and Russia (not coincidentally, the WW II victors), plus ten other members.
Each of the 5 permanent members holds a veto power over any substantive (i.e., non-procedural) Security Council resolution (i.e., the 5 permanent members must be in unanimous agreement on any substantive Security Council resolution). Obviously, because Russia is a permanent member, it would have been structurally impossible for the Security Council to act against the invasion of Afghanistan. Same for the American invasion of Iraq. If China decided to invade Taiwan after the next election, no Security Council resolution.
And without a Security Council resolution, the UN cannot act.
Blue Order -- Exactly the point. Great work!
Jeff -- I agree entirely with you when it comes to what the world needs to do with Irak now. Letting them down would be absolutely catastrophic.
