Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Like Halliburton?
Oh, the bids for the rebuilding of Iraq are coming in. Guess who is among the top of the list to get the contract?
Like Halliburton?
Oh, the bids for the rebuilding of Iraq are coming in. Guess who is among the top of the list to get the contract?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
So, now what happens when the rest of the world decides it does not like this. What is to prevent an EU alliance with Russia if they feel the need. The time to prevent this is to strike now. It is entirely possible to obliterate Europe and the rest of the world for that matter. The only thing that prevents that is people here. Later on, it will be hard to find a military solution to that problem, unless you think the present dominance is set in stone by God and are right.
PS the world never dismisses nukes, but may dismiss a country as being a friend or ally.
what does the Bushies continuous immoral politcal practices have to do with THIS issue????
We all know about Enron, Jeb's assistance in helping the mob steal millions from medicare, the S&L scandals (Reagan gave us) with the youngest son, Halliburton, etc.... Ever look into Dubya's oil companies??? how they all failed yet continue to merge, he was even given a seat on the board at the last, coincidentally they quickly got a new govt contract, he should be investigated for insider trading, he made about 15 million just before the first war when that company suddenly came up with substantial losses, think Daddy might have tipped him off as well? lol, everyone knows the GOP are nothing but a bunch of greedy rich bas*ards who are soley concerned with class warfare and the redistribution of wealth, see Bush's tax "cut"
We all know about Enron, Jeb's assistance in helping the mob steal millions from medicare, the S&L scandals (Reagan gave us) with the youngest son, Halliburton, etc.... Ever look into Dubya's oil companies??? how they all failed yet continue to merge, he was even given a seat on the board at the last, coincidentally they quickly got a new govt contract, he should be investigated for insider trading, he made about 15 million just before the first war when that company suddenly came up with substantial losses, think Daddy might have tipped him off as well? lol, everyone knows the GOP are nothing but a bunch of greedy rich bas*ards who are soley concerned with class warfare and the redistribution of wealth, see Bush's tax "cut"
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
I am amazed at how naive the posters are who are saying: "the US is taking all these mean actions".
It is simple and this happens every day.
The US wants something to happen. The other countries in the Security Council all have votes.
If they vote against the US, then they have to deal with the consequences.
I can virtually guarantee that many of them either agree with the US or don't really care about Iraq but are simply holding out for the best deal possible. Their vote on the Security Council gives them far more status than their actual stature as a country gives them. They would be ill-serving their country if they did not get the best deal possible. The US understands this as well as doesn't mind a certain amount of this.
Many of the smaller countires are in a very bad place. France has promised to veto no matter what. Why should they vote against the US and Britain and then lose favour with the US and any chance to cut some sort of deal when France will veto anyways?
Bush has to be more careful with Mexico in order to not screw up the Hispanic vote next election, but Mexico has to be careful as well. Bush has not listened to the right-wing advice to seriously squeeze illegal immigration from Mexico. If Mexico does not vote in favour of the resolution, this could change.
In an idealistic sense, it might be "wrong" that there are all these deals being cut, but I find nothing unusual about it at all.
Michael
It is simple and this happens every day.
The US wants something to happen. The other countries in the Security Council all have votes.
If they vote against the US, then they have to deal with the consequences.
I can virtually guarantee that many of them either agree with the US or don't really care about Iraq but are simply holding out for the best deal possible. Their vote on the Security Council gives them far more status than their actual stature as a country gives them. They would be ill-serving their country if they did not get the best deal possible. The US understands this as well as doesn't mind a certain amount of this.
Many of the smaller countires are in a very bad place. France has promised to veto no matter what. Why should they vote against the US and Britain and then lose favour with the US and any chance to cut some sort of deal when France will veto anyways?
Bush has to be more careful with Mexico in order to not screw up the Hispanic vote next election, but Mexico has to be careful as well. Bush has not listened to the right-wing advice to seriously squeeze illegal immigration from Mexico. If Mexico does not vote in favour of the resolution, this could change.
In an idealistic sense, it might be "wrong" that there are all these deals being cut, but I find nothing unusual about it at all.
Michael
Evadman
Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 30,990
- 5
- 81
Who cares? the UN is useless anyway.
I have a 4 piece puzzle that I need put together by next week.
If I give it to the UN they will debate over weather the puzzle has a right to be put togther, or if it should be left as nature wanted it; as seperate pieces. They will put a team together to research the correct puzzle placement in the wild, which will determine that the puzzle should be put together. This report will be hundreds of pages long. after about 2 months disecting the report, they will vote on the issue at hand: puzzle assembly. The vote will pass, and a crack team of inspectors who can not find sand in Iraq will be used to assemble the puzzle. the puzzle will be assembled in as little as 6 days. the completed puzzle wll be returned to the UN, where France realizes the puzzle is actualy a Russian flag. they will then ask for a resolution banning the assembly of puzzles.
If I give it to a 4 year old child, I will have a complete puzzle in 5 minutes. it will only take 5 minutes because he dropped a piece on the floor, and the dog ran away with it. it took 4 minutes to find where the dog put the piece.
I have a 4 piece puzzle that I need put together by next week.
If I give it to the UN they will debate over weather the puzzle has a right to be put togther, or if it should be left as nature wanted it; as seperate pieces. They will put a team together to research the correct puzzle placement in the wild, which will determine that the puzzle should be put together. This report will be hundreds of pages long. after about 2 months disecting the report, they will vote on the issue at hand: puzzle assembly. The vote will pass, and a crack team of inspectors who can not find sand in Iraq will be used to assemble the puzzle. the puzzle will be assembled in as little as 6 days. the completed puzzle wll be returned to the UN, where France realizes the puzzle is actualy a Russian flag. they will then ask for a resolution banning the assembly of puzzles.
If I give it to a 4 year old child, I will have a complete puzzle in 5 minutes. it will only take 5 minutes because he dropped a piece on the floor, and the dog ran away with it. it took 4 minutes to find where the dog put the piece.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
The principles are not up for debate. If you think the world is better off with Saddam in power, then you're a damn fool and even people "against" forceful disarmament will agree to that. All opposition to the use of force stems from anti-US sentiment or the lack of pro-US sentiment or, as in the case with American citizens, partisanship. Why is Mexico currently not for the war? Because the US hasn't done enough to help their ailing economy or passed any laws legalizing illegal aliens and nonsense like that. This debate never was about the merits of forceful disarmament. The fact that any country could even be coerced into agreeing to war is a sign that principles don't matter.
didnt do enough to help Mexico's economy???? Clinton bailed them out while he was in office, thankfully, otherwise our marktet would have not even passed 6,000, let alone 10,000, BTY Mexico paid that loan off EARLY.....
Speaking of Clinton, where are all the members of the vast right wing conspiracy that BLASTED Clinton for firing missiles admitting they were wrong and his decision was right now that they know he was in fact trying to kill Bin Looney and only missed him by minutes.....
The new movie Signs is out, does anyone still think crop circles are the result of ET??? lol
Speaking of Clinton, where are all the members of the vast right wing conspiracy that BLASTED Clinton for firing missiles admitting they were wrong and his decision was right now that they know he was in fact trying to kill Bin Looney and only missed him by minutes.....
The new movie Signs is out, does anyone still think crop circles are the result of ET??? lol
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
So everything everyone believes or says revolves around the US?
Did I hear fool mentioned?
No, I would rather be a fool, than a tyrrant. Your stance is exactly why there is so much anti US sentiment, and you are incapable of even beginning to grasp the full meaning of that statement.
the most disruptive force in the middle east are the other middle eastern countries who's only goal is to COMPLETELY irradicate Isreal. Arafat won't accept anything less than the total removal of Isreal from the Middle east. as long as they have that attitude of no compromise, there is absolutely no reason for isreal and the US to take a different stance on the issue.
Isreal is there, once the palestinians and other middle easterners accept that, then there is room for discussion. untill then the US is doing exactly what it should regarding isreal.
I didn't get that impression from his post, maybe you should reread. Some of the voices calling out against military action are doing so out of personal interest, France for example. They have made millions selling weapons to Iraq (be pretty embarrassing when those show up on the battlefield) and their oil companies have deals in place that are incredibly in their favor. Their principles are clear here, they are more concerned about making money for themselves than making the world safer for everyone. Where are their principles? Where is your outrage over that matter?
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Bailed out Mexico? Have you been down there recently? I've spent a few Summers working on an orphanage in Tecate and have visited the colonias and the cities built in garbage dumps. Clinton "bailed them out"??!! He may have helped the Mexican government, but the people are still in squaller and its the sentiment from the people--as you can see in the news--that is so against the "war".
Our economy hit 13k because it was in the midst of the greatest pyramid scheme known to man otherwise referred to as the dotcom boom. Nice of Clinton to ride the bubble and not do anything about it...afterall, it wouldn't burst until he was out of office, so why should he care?
"Your stance is exactly why there is so much anti US sentiment, and you are incapable of even beginning to grasp the full meaning of that statement"
Please explain the "stance" you are referring to, apparently all of us are not as intelligent as you and would appreciate it greatly if you would attempt to impart some of your wisdom on the rest of us unfortunate mindless fools. His stance was WHAT?????
"The fact that any country could even be coerced into agreeing to war is a sign that principles don't matter."
That is a very true and insightfull statement and an excellent commentary on what is ACTUALLY happening, why are these countries suddenly changing their minds???? Because they got what they were looking for, more $$$$ in trade and aid, sounds like principles played a major role in their decision.
Yes Clinton bailed them out, mid 90's, saved their economy from collapsing, it is a matter of public record and documented history, whether you feel the need to find out the truth or not at least the future will know. I suppose he will always be the villian for many people, they will credit this latest economic crisis to him as well, let's see if Bush can match what Clinton accomplished there. The dot com boom did not start the stock market spiraling upwards, lol, that began before most people even had net access, it all started with the balanced budget agreement that spurned the largest amount of INVESTMENT capital this country has seen in over 60 years coupled with 401k contributions. Funny how people will give you more money when you stop spending outside your limit and actually start paying back what you owe, what a concept. It was nice while it lasted, but now that Dubya is in office we have deficit spending again.....
What happened to the SURPLUS Clinton left??????? Spent on tax cuts for the wealthy, great choice....
While 99.9% != 100%, I think we can agree that its close. And if 99.9% of the resolutions passed at the UN are passed on the basis of who has the better carrot/stick combo and best at using it to whip "other countries into line and not a indication of legitimacy"... I think you have just implied that 99.9% of U.N. resolutions lack legitimacy. Correct me if you see a hole in the logic above
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Did I ever say everything everyone believes revolves around the US?
You sure did.
What is my stance, genius? And to which statement are you referring?
Ahahahaha...I love it. I still doubt the U.S. will get 9 votes, but if it did that would be great--not because I think the UN is worth a damn, but because watching the pro-Saddam crowd go into contortions to try to maintain some internal logic to their argument will be HI-larious.
First they said that *unilateral* action was wrong, and that the U.S. needed allies (the U.S. was a cowboy, opposing the will of the international community, blah blah blah).
Then when the U.S. pulled dozens of nations into its coalition, protestors either (i) ignored it and continued to ramble on about unilateralism, (ii) belittled the support of the smaller countries as irrelevant (mind you, these are the same countries whose support they had previously been touting as absolutely essential for any war), or (iii) backed off of their demands for multilateral action and claimed that they originally meant UN backing specifically, not "just" a multilateral coalition.
Now that UN approval (a rare and difficult event to achieve...keep in mind that the UN has backed only 3 of the 26 conflicts since its inception) has entered the realm of possibility detractors are left desperately trying to marginalize the support of an institution they once built up as a relevant, credible, and legitimate force in maintaining global security.
Oh, the irony.
If you oppose the war because you do not think Saddam's offenses warrant military action, that is fine by me. I disagree, but at least you have a legitimate position. By contrast, these constant attempts to attack the American position based on its relative level of support from other countries are extremely comical. The whole history of that argument is just one long retreat, and now finally the practitioners of such methods are back against the wall with no way to wriggle out, and are forced to admit what more the more honest anti-war crowd admitted long ago: that they oppose the war under *any* circumstances, and their clamoring for multilateral/UN support was a farce all along.
First they said that *unilateral* action was wrong, and that the U.S. needed allies (the U.S. was a cowboy, opposing the will of the international community, blah blah blah).
Then when the U.S. pulled dozens of nations into its coalition, protestors either (i) ignored it and continued to ramble on about unilateralism, (ii) belittled the support of the smaller countries as irrelevant (mind you, these are the same countries whose support they had previously been touting as absolutely essential for any war), or (iii) backed off of their demands for multilateral action and claimed that they originally meant UN backing specifically, not "just" a multilateral coalition.
Now that UN approval (a rare and difficult event to achieve...keep in mind that the UN has backed only 3 of the 26 conflicts since its inception) has entered the realm of possibility detractors are left desperately trying to marginalize the support of an institution they once built up as a relevant, credible, and legitimate force in maintaining global security.
Oh, the irony.
If you oppose the war because you do not think Saddam's offenses warrant military action, that is fine by me. I disagree, but at least you have a legitimate position. By contrast, these constant attempts to attack the American position based on its relative level of support from other countries are extremely comical. The whole history of that argument is just one long retreat, and now finally the practitioners of such methods are back against the wall with no way to wriggle out, and are forced to admit what more the more honest anti-war crowd admitted long ago: that they oppose the war under *any* circumstances, and their clamoring for multilateral/UN support was a farce all along.
"I think you have just implied that 99.9% of U.N. resolutions lack legitimacy."
when one country has the veto power that silences the majority you have to question the process at least.......
when one country has the veto power that silences the majority you have to question the process at least.......
How about when one person has the veto power that silences the majority? E.G. Our own government =). Do you question that process as well? Granted we have a process in place so that we can go "over the head" of the President if need be, by requiring an overwhelming majority vote that overrides the veto. That, however, doesn't happen to often and usually when the President vetoes it that means the end of the bill (until it is re-written).
If we dont like what he is doing, we can vote him out after 4 years, max. We can't vote France, Russia, China, or the UK out.
On another point, UNSC resolutions requite 9 of 15... a 2/3 majority. If something gets passed by that majority in both the House and the Senate, its going to become law anyway, assuming that everyone votes the same the second time around
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Sorry to have to go into the real world. Can't always play on demand.
Hero- My sig now reflects your attitude. Perhaps you percieve me to be a genius because I can fight with something other than guns, which BTW I can use quite well. Your options seem to be more limited.
Alistar7- When one offers a bribe and one takes it does not give legitimaticy to an act. Your stance? I never asked you for yours. Do you have one?
Exp- I agree. Frankly the whole UN vote does not matter in a practical sense, because GWB is going to do whatever he wants when the time comes. Frankly, I am not supporting the europeans in an action because it coincides with my wish for there to be no war. I believe all governments are corruptable, but to unilaterally accuse a given administration of things when there is no more tangible evidence for wrong doing is fun, but not convincing. I can dredge up Halliburton past and present for those who want to go there. Doesnt make it true, but who wants truth anyway? Better to accuse in ignorance.
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