United States is a hypocrite

[dawks]

Originally posted by: JoeBaD
zakath,

you ain't got anything between your legs now do ya?

the US is the greatest nation on the Earth. we are the only nation that consistently stands up for the downtrodden and stands up to the bullies. we wil stand up to Iraq and we will stand up against future others because the other puusies in the world like you will not. if not for the US, this world would be a sesspool.

So so many things wrong with this post..

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DaZ

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: broon
What kind of attitude is that?

An attitude that's trying to save mens' lives.

No, your original statement was something like "with that kind of attitude it will start WW3". I was wondering what kind of attitude you were talking about.

The attitude that the US can act without regards to the repercussions of her actions; that we are morally superior to other countries; etc.

We know our actions will create reprecussions and we are prepared to live them. Being a minority opinion does not imply our opinion is wrong. I for one am very glad the US ignores the thoughts and wishes of other counties on a regular basis.

Are you really prepared for the reprecussions? Can you handle another 9/11? What happens when your attacked again, you get more pissed off, and attack another area, and again, upset even more.. Its a vicious cycle. Are you really prepared for it?

And if we do nothing, we remain a paper tiger. If we are paper tiger, we remain open to attack.

 

[olds]

What right do we have to invade Iraq because they supposedly possess chemical and biological weapons?
Ah, just beacuse we can. That's good enough for me.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
What right do we have to invade Iraq because they supposedly possess chemical and biological weapons?
Ah, just beacuse we can. That's good enough for me.

Have you read anything in this thread?

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
What right do we have to invade Iraq because they supposedly possess chemical and biological weapons?
Ah, just because we can. That's good enough for me.

Have you read anything in this thread?

Ya, I got half way thru it but was so dumbfounded by your ignorance that blood started pouring from my ears. One I got the bleeding stopped, I started reading again but this time your ignorance caused my eyesight to go out of focus and that made any further reading too difficult.

 

[JellyBaby]

Our OT political party-based opinions on Iraq seem to fit this general profile:

Democrats - wants to invade to liberate the people of Iraq. Your basic touchy-feely.
Republicans - wants to invade to liberate the oil of Iraq. Your basic me-take.
Libertarian - wants to see America mind its own business. Your basic hands-off.

Common to all three is a belief Saddum is a scummy self-serving tyrant. Which approach is best for the American people? Not Shell, not Mobile, not British Petrol, not Rs, not Ds but the American people? Some say it matters not and #2 was in-the-works beginning January 20th 2001. Each of the above has benefits and costs and not one solution is perfect.

Its up to our leadership to decide. Unfortunately our senators and representatives have transferred their war declaration power to basically a single person, Bush. King Bush? I hope not.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Our OT political party-based opinions on Iraq seem to fit this general profile:

Democrats - wants to invade to liberate the people of Iraq. Your basic touchy-feely.
Republicans - wants to invade to liberate the oil of Iraq. Your basic me-take.
Libertarian - wants to see America mind its own business. Your basic hands-off.

Common to all three is a belief Saddum is a scummy self-serving tyrant. Which approach is best for the American people? Not Shell, not Mobile, not British Petrol, not Rs, not Ds but the American people? Some say it matters not and #2 was in-the-works beginning January 20th 2001. Each of the above has benefits and costs and not one solution is perfect.

Its up to our leadership to decide. Unfortunately our senators and representatives have transferred their war declaration power to basically a single person, Bush. King Bush? I hope not.

Count me as conservative that wants remove the threat of iraq. If there was no oil there, it would still need to be done.

Not long ago liberals were demanding that Bush get permission from congress to wage war on Iraq.
Now Bush has permission from both the house and senate. The same liberals are incorrectly charging that Bush removed the power for congress to be in charge of war.

Bush can now, with consent of congress, use force to instigate a regime change if Sadam does not comply with full weapons inspections.


You got what you asked for, now you are trying to make it something it is not.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
What right do we have to invade Iraq because they supposedly possess chemical and biological weapons?
Ah, just because we can. That's good enough for me.

Have you read anything in this thread?

Ya, I got half way thru it but was so dumbfounded by your ignorance that blood started pouring from my ears. One I got the bleeding stopped, I started reading again but this time your ignorance caused my eyesight to go out of focus and that made any further reading too difficult.

The mod quote in your sig concerning trolls is particularly ironic in your case.

 

[THUGSROOK]

iraq is like a bee hive ~ you can get rid of it later, or now.
either way you will have to get rid of it.

i mean its not like were talking about cuba here

 

[JellyBaby]

Count me as conservative that wants remove the threat of iraq. If there was no oil there, it would still need to be done.

Not long ago liberals were demanding that Bush get permission from congress to wage war on Iraq.
Now Bush has permission from both the house and senate. The same liberals are incorrectly charging that Bush removed the power for congress to be in charge of war.

Bush can now, with consent of congress, use force to instigate a regime change if Sadam does not comply with full weapons inspections.


You got what you asked for, now you are trying to make it something it is not.

Have you looked at Zimbabwe lately? No oil there, a similar situation exists yet Bush is determined to stay out of that one. Why, if there was no oil in Iraq would "it still need to be done" and why would you not do the same in Zimbabwe or a dozen other circumstances I could mention?

Bush has a cop-out resolution from a congress that should have declared war. Technically, I'm not sure they can transfer this authority to him without an amendment to the constitution. So in basic legal terms the resolution is not valid and should be challenged.

Congress, back in '73, created the War Powers Act designed mainly to limit presidental use of military might so he can't drag us into wars on a whim, personal ambition and manipulate things so we're perpetually at war. Clinton blantantly violated the WPA in the Kosovo Campaign. Some 30 odd congressmen sued him but the courts wrongfully stopped the case cold for completely bonehead reasons. Obviously, the WPA is weak, ill-conceived and probably unconstitutional as well though I'm still studying it.

But apparently the slippery slope created after WW2 where they began to use the military in a manner contrary to constitution mandate means anything goes these days.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Count me as conservative that wants remove the threat of iraq. If there was no oil there, it would still need to be done.

Not long ago liberals were demanding that Bush get permission from congress to wage war on Iraq.
Now Bush has permission from both the house and senate. The same liberals are incorrectly charging that Bush removed the power for congress to be in charge of war.

Bush can now, with consent of congress, use force to instigate a regime change if Sadam does not comply with full weapons inspections.


You got what you asked for, now you are trying to make it something it is not.

Have you looked at Zimbabwe lately? No oil there, a similar situation exists yet Bush is determined to stay out of that one. Why, if there was no oil in Iraq would "it still need to be done" and why would you not do the same in Zimbabwe or a dozen other circumstances I could mention?

Bush has a cop-out resolution from a congress that should have declared war. Technically, I'm not sure they can transfer this authority to him without an amendment to the constitution. So in basic legal terms the resolution is not valid and should be challenged.

Congress, back in '73, created the War Powers Act designed mainly to limit presidental use of military might so he can't drag us into wars on a whim, personal ambition and manipulate things so we're perpetually at war. Clinton blantantly violated the WPA in the Kosovo Campaign. Some 30 odd congressmen sued him but the courts wrongfully stopped the case cold for completely bonehead reasons. Obviously, the WPA is weak, ill-conceived and probably unconstitutional as well though I'm still studying it.

But apparently the slippery slope created after WW2 where they began to use the military in a manner contrary to constitution mandate means anything goes these days.

Zimbabwe, that is where all the white farmers have been kicked off their land and general population is starving because of that?
Yes there is a stupid dictator there.
No, thay are not violating UN resolutions(not that i know of)
No, they are not firing on US planes.
From what i know they have 0 confirmed dealings with internation terrorist.
Other than that, they are identical.
Oil could be a nice spoil of war, but it is far from only being about oil, which is what you claim.

The president is currently not even in violation of the war powers act.

How exactly did the congress give away all ability to declare to the president?
President Bush got the ability to war with Iraq if needed. If I have been misinformed please show me where in the approval that BUsh can declare war with anyone he wishes at any time? ANd please tell me how this was done without an amendment?

 

[FettsBabe]

You can't say that you would have done the same. You dont' know what you would do unless you are in the situation. I'm sure alot of people there thought they would have done something, but they didn't.

Hussein doesn't have a cast. He's a dictator with to many weapons. He is also very aggressive towards neighboring countries (Kuwait).

 

[Orsorum]

How has Iraq been in contact with any terrorist organization?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
How has Iraq been in contact with any terrorist organization?

Senior al queda have been spotted in baghdad.
Abu nidal used to live in baghdad until his recent death.
One of the hijackers from sept 11 was in baghdad for a meeting before hand.
Itelligence thinks there are terrorist training camps in iraq.
Hussein writes checks to family of the suicide bombers in isreal.


The last item is enough to warrent his removal.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zakath15
How has Iraq been in contact with any terrorist organization?

Senior al queda have been spotted in baghdad.
Abu nidal used to live in baghdad until his recent death.
One of the hijackers from sept 11 was in baghdad for a meeting before hand.
Itelligence thinks there are terrorist training camps in iraq.
Hussein writes checks to family of the suicide bombers in isreal.


The last item is enough to warrent his removal.

Was it specifically to the suicide bombers or just victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zakath15
How has Iraq been in contact with any terrorist organization?

Senior al queda have been spotted in baghdad.
Abu nidal used to live in baghdad until his recent death.
One of the hijackers from sept 11 was in baghdad for a meeting before hand.
Itelligence thinks there are terrorist training camps in iraq.
Hussein writes checks to family of the suicide bombers in isreal.


The last item is enough to warrent his removal.

Was it specifically to the suicide bombers or just victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

To the familys of the suicide bombers, not the innocent victims that are killed.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zakath15
How has Iraq been in contact with any terrorist organization?

Senior al queda have been spotted in baghdad.
Abu nidal used to live in baghdad until his recent death.
One of the hijackers from sept 11 was in baghdad for a meeting before hand.
Itelligence thinks there are terrorist training camps in iraq.
Hussein writes checks to family of the suicide bombers in isreal.


The last item is enough to warrent his removal.

Was it specifically to the suicide bombers or just victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

To the familys of the suicide bombers, not the innocent victims that are killed.

Here's a link talking about it. link

What are your thoughts on this quote from the article...
But Saddam is not the only one giving money. Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar - both U.S. allies - pay money to families of Palestinians killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers.

 

[TheShiz]

typically the US does things to either gain something from it, or to protect the mainland. I like the Hitler example because it is an interesting one. Notice how the US did NOTHING until pearl harbor. Before that the Germans killed MILLIONS of jews, the US knew this, it would be impossible for them not to, but they did NOTHING about it until the US was attacked. Just like Saddam gassing the Kurds, Saddam was an on our side, so it was ok. Things like this have happened in many places around the world in the past 50 years. One of the worst cases being East Timor. People need to realize that whatever their government is telling them is obviously going to be a very biased view, think about it, they want you to believe what they are telling you. If you want to get a more accurate picture of what is going on I urge you to seek out some international sources and talk to people from all around the world. The way things are going, what suffers is humanity. Every nation around the world is guilty of crimes against that.

Tim

 

[JellyBaby]

Oil could be a nice spoil of war, but it is far from only being about oil, which is what you claim.

Nay, I don't claim it's only about the Black Blood of the Earth. My current guestimation of Bush's true motives:

1) Oil for personal profit.
2) Oil for special interests.
3) Oil for nation's future energy needs.
4) Revenge against Saddum for first being a good puppet but later becoming an Evildoing independent. And attempted assassination of Daddy Bush.
5) To send a strong message to Arab states (forgetting for a moment many are allied with us). This is what he thinks will work mind you.
6) National security/defense of Israel.
7) Phase one of targeting governments the U.S. wants to eliminate.
8) To prevent another oil shortage like we had in the 70's.
9) Gain another foothold in the region to get modern day American Empire expansion off to a great start.
10) To support the U.S. military-industrial complex (e.g. Westinghouse, McDonald Douglass/Boeing/Lockheed, G.E.).
11) Possibly to give a small boost to a segment of our economy.
12) To piss off Moonbeam.

I don't think it's to distract from domestic issues.

 

[rufruf44]

If we follow Zakath's policy, we'll just sit idle and watch while Saddam engulfed its neighbour and conquer the oil rich Arabian Peninsula to further financed his ambition. By that time, he'll be a much bigger threat to the US than where he is right now. So the choice is either we strike now while we still has more decisive advantage, or later when Saddam becomes more powerful. Seemed to be no brainer for me.

 

[JellyBaby]

rufruf44, I suppose now is a great time to do it. In a decade or so many of these nations will be able to defend themselves against foreign aggression and the opportunity will be lost.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: rufruf44
If we follow Zakath's policy, we'll just sit idle and watch while Saddam engulfed its neighbour and conquer the oil rich Arabian Peninsula to further financed his ambition. By that time, he'll be a much bigger threat to the US than where he is right now. So the choice is either we strike now while we still has more decisive advantage, or later when Saddam becomes more powerful. Seemed to be no brainer for me.

It's a region of the world in which we have no authority or right to intervene.

If he embarks on a campaign of genocide, on the scale that Hitler did, then by all means, we should stop him. If he is embarking on a campaign to take over the known world and has allies on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, then by all means, we should stop him.

I'm still failing to see why you consider him a threat. His military is insignificant, it was in Desert Storm and it is now.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: charrison

We have a winner. We have kept Saddam locked up in box(as per UN resolutions)for 11 years now, and guess what he is not amused. He would gladly do anything to get back at US. Since we know he wants to do harm to US, we have a right to defend ourselfs.

This all because of failed UN policy.

Never said I believed he would do anything to us. I think it more likely he will act aggressively towards his neighbors first.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Oil could be a nice spoil of war, but it is far from only being about oil, which is what you claim.

Nay, I don't claim it's only about the Black Blood of the Earth. My current guestimation of Bush's true motives:

1) Oil for personal profit.
2) Oil for special interests.
3) Oil for nation's future energy needs.
4) Revenge against Saddum for first being a good puppet but later becoming an Evildoing independent. And attempted assassination of Daddy Bush.
5) To send a strong message to Arab states (forgetting for a moment many are allied with us). This is what he thinks will work mind you.
6) National security/defense of Israel.
7) Phase one of targeting governments the U.S. wants to eliminate.
8) To prevent another oil shortage like we had in the 70's.
9) Gain another foothold in the region to get modern day American Empire expansion off to a great start.
10) To support the U.S. military-industrial complex (e.g. Westinghouse, McDonald Douglass/Boeing/Lockheed, G.E.).
11) Possibly to give a small boost to a segment of our economy.
12) To piss off Moonbeam.

I don't think it's to distract from domestic issues.

Because there might exist someone in the US that profit from, removing a national security threat is not a good idea.
It is good to have paranoid people like yourself around to keep out goverment in check. But this hardly about only about or being an Empire(which we are not)

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: charrison
Senior al queda have been spotted in baghdad.
Abu nidal used to live in baghdad until his recent death.
One of the hijackers from sept 11 was in baghdad for a meeting before hand.
Itelligence thinks there are terrorist training camps in iraq.
Hussein writes checks to family of the suicide bombers in isreal.


The last item is enough to warrent his removal.

Al Queda members bein gin a country doesn't mean the country supports terrorists.

its the UN and those pansy european countries that are hypocritical for not willing to enforce their own UN resolutions. instead they have to wait for the US to pony up the money [lots] and soldiers to do the dirty work.

The US seems to be the only country to be under threat from Iraq (or it's the main one), so why should anyone else be worried if only the US will be attacked? It's their problem so they should have to supply the money and troops to sort it out.

Well, at least the U.S. is responsible with her weapons of mass destruction. They are meant never to be used, only to deter. It would be different with Iraq.

You can see into the future that Iraq will definatly use their WMD unprovoked and risk pissing off the rest of the world? I think that one of the main reasons Iraq might use WMD is if they were under threat from, say, the US.