But Iraq liked us before and we liked them. Israel is in violation of dozens of UN resolutions yet the US continues to support them 100%. Perhaps the US should make a pre-emptive strike against Israel because they could one day be our enemy and want to strike us. Best to nip it in the bud.
Oh, BTW, I thought you Bush supporters thought the UN was worthless? But you'll use those UN resolutions against Saddam the first chance you get.
So, if the UN is then worthless so, too, are its resolutions. You want to have your cake and eat it, too. You must take the bad along with the good.
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
wasn't saddam more of the "lesser of two evils" when we stuck him in? i was born in '87, so i don't know
but yeah, i'd say if someone has laughed at the UN "world court," broken resolutions, committed genocide, and supported terrorism (we have satellite photos of camps, conjur), I think that's a pretty strong basis to go ahead and take him out after the UN has been made a laughing stock for the Nth time in a row.
Saddam didn't get 'stuck in' anywhere. He assumed power through murder, deceit, and fear. Essentially he staged a coup.
As per the 'satellite photos' of the camps... I don't know where you got your images, but I'm sure the CIA would like to look at them since they are still having problems locating any such camps. I love when blanket statements are made without reference to fact and then just displayed as facts.
If you say that if a country has 'laughed at the World Court, broken resolutions, etc... then you should be looking to bomb Israel too.
I was for the war in Iraq, but not on the basis of which it was founded. Bush yelled WMDs, then after those could not be located, he screamed LINKS TO AL QAEDA, nope... didn't work either, so he yelled about LIBERATE IRAQIS. And the last notion I'd have agreed with, but that was something that should have been mentioned from the onset. If we went into Iraq on the basis of Saddam having killed masses of his own people (ie, genocide) then it would be easy to get a multinational force because genocide is one of those things everybody agrees to combat quickly and effectively. A multinational force would prevent all the deaths we have had. It would prevent all the mistakes we have made, because there would be more than one head in the planning and preparation for war. And oh yea... it wouldn't have cost as much damn money.
The simple fact remains that Bush and Co, with the exception of Powell, are rather war-hungry and thru all of them -- don't have any experience in combat so it's easy for them to wage war. Bush Sr. understood the risks of war and what he was doing, Bush Jr. simply does not. It's easy to be the President and push a button to go to war; the horrors of war are something that Bush and Co simply have not faced and Tommy Franks, Colin Powell and others who had shyed away from this war from the onset DID understand and it was a key rationale to avoiding it. Bob Woodward's book is a good insight into who understood war, and who did not. Bush is part of the latter team.
I don't think Kerry will be much of a good President at all... but he's not Bush, and for that he gets my vote. I don't like the man, I don't care much for his policies, but the egregious acts of stupidity on Bush's part are too much to overlook. He's severed ties (essentially) with powerful allies we had in one fell swoop. His environmental policy is so bad that EPA secretary resigned so her record wouldn't be tainted with his follies. His war policy continues to change and shift according to polling. He supports Carl Rove, protege of the late Lee Atwater, to smear his opponent in any way he can while claiming to be a 'compassionate conservative' (what a crock), his tax and spend policy is horrendous (he likes to cut taxes AND spend more? @#$%^@#%), and oh yea... he's the stupidest President in history. It's enough for me to say bye bye to him, and welcome in another President. One whom I'll likely be voting out in 4 years anyway.
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
wasn't saddam more of the "lesser of two evils" when we stuck him in? i was born in '87, so i don't know
but yeah, i'd say if someone has laughed at the UN "world court," broken resolutions, committed genocide, and supported terrorism (we have satellite photos of camps, conjur), I think that's a pretty strong basis to go ahead and take him out after the UN has been made a laughing stock for the Nth time in a row.
By the way if I may ask... how, at 15 years of age, do you feel you have any knowledge of the world and its events? As said in this post earlier, intelligence isn't black and white -- neither is this world. In the US you have 4 or 5 news networks that bring you the 'news'. Four of them have worked together for years in order to rid the world of CNN, which failed. It brings a dismal broadcast of news events when we see them on our US TV sets.
Either you regurgitate your parents (which may be more likely) or you're a really smart (or dumb?) 15 year old. It took me many years to get where I am now, and I've decided 100% that I hate politicians as a whole and none can be trusted. I certainly had no idea at 15, and looking back, I know I wasn't mature or informed enough to make 100% decisions based on the information I had at the time.
Not a flame... just a question. How can you get involved in a debate unless you know ALL the surrounding facts? FOXNews doesn't give you the whole picture, nor does a 'liberal' (i love how people throw that word around now) source. You have to read the bias from the OTHER end too... ie, read the arab, british, israeli papers and see how different they are in what they cover. Most Americans call it lies from abroad... but there's some truth in there. It's rather obvious already that you don't have all the facts... you just like Bush and come up with absolute bogus information to discredit the other side. Lee Atwater would be proud -- or actually no, he wouldn't. He spent the last years of his life apologising profusely for the things he did to other politicians while he was active in politics. The same things you are trying now.
It's just sad. And at 15 no less, to already be started down this path of bashing, poor arguements, and talking before you understand the whole picture -- even more sad.
Hope you learn that 'liberals' are not evil -- at least no more than conservatives. :beer:
Explain to me exactly then... in this chronology...
The UN issues resolutions.
A country breaks them.
The US goes to the UN and says we should use force to fix this.
The UN convenes and democratically... says no, we should exhaust other methods first.
The US uses force to ENFORCE UN resolutions, that the UN didn't agree on.
The UN member nations are pissed.
Key allies of the US, and years of diplomatic efforts crushed in one fell swoop.
So either the UN is important, or it's not. You can't enforce rules of a body that democratically chooses another option, like using inspectors thoroughly, diplomacy, and sanctions. It's like saying if a cop pulls somebody over and says, "Okay, I'll let you go this time" for say, speeding.. you pass by and then give that person a ticket for the cop. It doesn't work that way. Diplomacy is an intricate task, and requires years of give and take before trust is built. Additionally, that diplomacy would have gone a long way to see that not ONLY the US troops would be doing the work in Iraq. If you know your history... Iraqis are already familiar with the name "Bush"... he helped to kill thousands of them before by signing a cease-fire agreement and then letting the resistance in Iraq get quelled by extreme prejudice and violence of Saddam.
Originally posted by: Scribe
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
wasn't saddam more of the "lesser of two evils" when we stuck him in? i was born in '87, so i don't know
but yeah, i'd say if someone has laughed at the UN "world court," broken resolutions, committed genocide, and supported terrorism (we have satellite photos of camps, conjur), I think that's a pretty strong basis to go ahead and take him out after the UN has been made a laughing stock for the Nth time in a row.
By the way if I may ask... how, at 15 years of age, do you feel you have any knowledge of the world and its events? As said in this post earlier, intelligence isn't black and white -- neither is this world. In the US you have 4 or 5 news networks that bring you the 'news'. Four of them have worked together for years in order to rid the world of CNN, which failed. It brings a dismal broadcast of news events when we see them on our US TV sets.
Either you regurgitate your parents (which may be more likely) or you're a really smart (or dumb?) 15 year old. It took me many years to get where I am now, and I've decided 100% that I hate politicians as a whole and none can be trusted. I certainly had no idea at 15, and looking back, I know I wasn't mature or informed enough to make 100% decisions based on the information I had at the time.
Not a flame... just a question. How can you get involved in a debate unless you know ALL the surrounding facts? FOXNews doesn't give you the whole picture, nor does a 'liberal' (i love how people throw that word around now) source. You have to read the bias from the OTHER end too... ie, read the arab, british, israeli papers and see how different they are in what they cover. Most Americans call it lies from abroad... but there's some truth in there. It's rather obvious already that you don't have all the facts... you just like Bush and come up with absolute bogus information to discredit the other side. Lee Atwater would be proud -- or actually no, he wouldn't. He spent the last years of his life apologising profusely for the things he did to other politicians while he was active in politics. The same things you are trying now.
It's just sad. And at 15 no less, to already be started down this path of bashing, poor arguements, and talking before you understand the whole picture -- even more sad.
Hope you learn that 'liberals' are not evil -- at least no more than conservatives. :beer:
Uhh...Fenixgoon is 17.
Details Details... I never said math was my strong point though he could still be 16... depending on when he was bornOriginally posted by: conjur
Uhh...Fenixgoon is 17.
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,389
- 12,992
- 136
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Scribe
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
wasn't saddam more of the "lesser of two evils" when we stuck him in? i was born in '87, so i don't know
but yeah, i'd say if someone has laughed at the UN "world court," broken resolutions, committed genocide, and supported terrorism (we have satellite photos of camps, conjur), I think that's a pretty strong basis to go ahead and take him out after the UN has been made a laughing stock for the Nth time in a row.
By the way if I may ask... how, at 15 years of age, do you feel you have any knowledge of the world and its events? As said in this post earlier, intelligence isn't black and white -- neither is this world. In the US you have 4 or 5 news networks that bring you the 'news'. Four of them have worked together for years in order to rid the world of CNN, which failed. It brings a dismal broadcast of news events when we see them on our US TV sets.
Either you regurgitate your parents (which may be more likely) or you're a really smart (or dumb?) 15 year old. It took me many years to get where I am now, and I've decided 100% that I hate politicians as a whole and none can be trusted. I certainly had no idea at 15, and looking back, I know I wasn't mature or informed enough to make 100% decisions based on the information I had at the time.
Not a flame... just a question. How can you get involved in a debate unless you know ALL the surrounding facts? FOXNews doesn't give you the whole picture, nor does a 'liberal' (i love how people throw that word around now) source. You have to read the bias from the OTHER end too... ie, read the arab, british, israeli papers and see how different they are in what they cover. Most Americans call it lies from abroad... but there's some truth in there. It's rather obvious already that you don't have all the facts... you just like Bush and come up with absolute bogus information to discredit the other side. Lee Atwater would be proud -- or actually no, he wouldn't. He spent the last years of his life apologising profusely for the things he did to other politicians while he was active in politics. The same things you are trying now.
It's just sad. And at 15 no less, to already be started down this path of bashing, poor arguements, and talking before you understand the whole picture -- even more sad.
Hope you learn that 'liberals' are not evil -- at least no more than conservatives. :beer:
Uhh...Fenixgoon is 17.
hahaha thanks conjur :beer: as for the debate thing, on your basis of "how can i get in a debate without knowing ALL surrounding facts?" technically, none of us should begin speaking, unless someone is a poli-sci/foreign relations major. and yes, i do consider myself smart... or at least enough to make intellgent reasoning the basis of my opinions. And by the way, there's no such thing as an honest politician.
edit: my bday is jan 5 1987.. so yeah, im 17 1/2
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
edit: my bday is jan 5 1987.. so yeah, im 17 1/2
Jan 5 Birthday's rock
CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
edit: my bday is jan 5 1987.. so yeah, im 17 1/2
Jan 5 Birthday's rock
CkG
your birthday as well, CkG?
But of course
CkG
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter