|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 11, 2005 22:55:45 GMT -5
Many Americans objected to President Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia -- without a declaration of war by Congress and with no threat of attack against the United States. You might be one of those who think it's wrong to bomb innocent Serbs for the alleged sins of one man.
By attacking a smaller country without provocation, our president invited the resentment of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, as well as the active interest of terrorists who might want to react to such a dangerous foreign policy.
Who gave President Clinton the authority to jeopardize our future in this way?
Well, maybe you did. Even if you opposed Clinton's bombing campaign, you still may have authorized it.
If you cheered when President Reagan sent troops into Grenada, you endorsed the idea that the president of the United States -- at his own discretion -- is free to wage war against anyone he chooses, for any reason he chooses. He need not get a declaration of war, and America need not be threatened with attack.
-------
Just found this article, dated 1999.
Similarites anyone? (IRAQ!!!)
Fucking Democrats, cant you see that your beloved Clinton did the exact same as the current president. He attacked a country for the purpose of a regime change without any 'reason' too. Both regimes (Iraq and Yugo) we're clearly oppressive. Iraq maybe even worse cos atleast they were possibly a threat to the U.S and maybe had links to terrorists (not neccessarily Al-Qaeda), and they were only a year or two away from WMD-if they didnt have them already-and WMD in control of an evil dicator such a Saddam who GASSED HIS OWN DAMN PEOPLE would not be good-surely noone is stupid enough to argue against that claim.
While im bashing Clinton, heres another thing:
It’s worth noting, too, that Democrats not from Louisiana have not always been enthusiastic supporters of New Orleans’ anti-flood efforts. The Clinton Administration held up a major New Orleans levee construction project in 1995, according to a June 23, 1995, article in the Times-Picayune
Clinton also cut funding for the levees, and that was after New Orleans flooded in 1995!! So, Dems, was Clinton really the 'perfect' president? If he was, surely Bush comes close...look at the similarites. Sure Bush isn't the best president, but he's no means as bad as people think.
The simple truth is that people are mislead by the media and other uneducated people. Sheehan claimed that it's "not worth dying for this country." THEN WHY WAS YOUR SON IN THE ARMY!!! dumbass.
There is no draft. When you join the army you realized theres a risk of going to war-enough said. If you don't want to go to war, dont join. And if you do join and there is a war, then dont complain because you knew the risk and noone forced you!! If there was a draft, i think my opinion of the Iraq War would be different, but there isnt one....so stop the whinging on that front and serve your damn country in which you obviously wanted to do.
Kanye West believes that Bush hates black ppl and ordered whites to shoot at them. Outrageous.
Al Sharpton supports both Sheehan-the left wing nut job who is v uneducated, and West-who knows fuck all apparently.
Michael Moore created the incredibly biased Far. 9/11.
These are just a few examples of the media portraying Bush as a bad president. Almost everyone watches TV, and for the uneducated, this is how they get their information. There's no counter point to show the other side of the situation, so the people who cant think for themselves only have this baised crap to go by.
I'm not saying everyone should like Bush, nor am i saying he is always correct. What i am saying though is that he deserves more respect.
Also, we're fighting a war and our enemies are terrorists. We dont need another enemy called the Democrats who are already advocating for the U.S to lose the war just so they have more amunition against Bush.-That's sick and twisted and truly does support Bush's claim "you're either with us, or you're against us." Come on Dems, the war has happened, we've won, now we need support in order to fight off the insurgents and rebuild Iraq, bitterness does not help anyone.
Nice rant for me, 10/10...now off to bed
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Sept 11, 2005 23:14:32 GMT -5
MR LIVE4EVER.. this will get moved to the serious side.. hhmmm.. i was not aware we acted UNILATERALLY on this? i thought US AND NATO ALLIES ? from what i remember from my former military life ?? NOT SURE I DRAW A PARELLEL HERE .. one war was for ethnic cleansing .........DROVES OF OTHER COUNTRIES VOLUNTEERED.. ~this current war HAPPENED for much different reasons --- no need for me to list em... minus the WMD..
|
|
|
Post by chocolate st*rfish on Sept 12, 2005 1:49:53 GMT -5
on the clinton thing: i'm a born yugoslavian/serb and i must agree it was absolutely wrong to bomb houses, hospitals, innocents etc. and i've been down there, i know what the country still looks like cos of the bombings..
but the problem back then was, that the european union expected clinton to do something cos they couldnt handle it on their own..still they depend so much on the US government although they dont like to admit it.. the ex-prez of yugoslavia then slaughtered thousands of civilians in kosovo and something had to be done about it after weeks of warnings and trying to get things right via diplomacy.
conc. bush/hurricane matter: regardless of whether one here likes his/her president or not, one thing's for sure: the very basic job of a government is to protect its people.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 12, 2005 5:57:40 GMT -5
yeh, and Saddam killed his own people too....
Both were attacked without being provoked Both had oprressive regimes that needed to be changed Both had terrorists in the aftermath Both situations had its critics Both situations were deemed neccessary by some of the publice
the ONLY difference is that there were MORE reasons to invade Iraq:
WMD, kicking out of inspectors, oppressive regime, possible connection to terrorists etc etc
yeh im trying not to strike out on this one lol
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Sept 12, 2005 18:26:47 GMT -5
yeh, and Saddam killed his own people too.... Both were attacked without being provoked Both had oprressive regimes that needed to be changed Both had terrorists in the aftermath Both situations had its critics Both situations were deemed neccessary by some of the publice the ONLY difference is that there were MORE reasons to invade Iraq: WMD, kicking out of inspectors, oppressive regime, possible connection to terrorists etc etc yeh im trying not to strike out on this one lol i despair when people who know fuck all about international law act as if they do
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 12, 2005 20:30:57 GMT -5
how credible
maybe instead of criticizing, you should type your view out...
really, the only difference is that Yugo. was more extreme than Iraq considering it was Genocide
people claim "it's not our place to fight a war for the Iraqis", yet it IS our place to fight for the Serbs, Africans, whomever...interesting that--typical democrats, always contradicting themselves.
Also, about 80% supported the War, that number has dropped significantly bc of the WAY IT WAS HANDLED not really bc of the reasons.
Acting on the intel that was provided, the decision was correct. After 9/11, every threat has to be taken seriously.
Hypotherical situation: If Bush invaded Afghan. before 9/11 bc he got a report that Al-Qaeda wanted to crash planes into TWC, the response would have been EXACTLY the same.
9/11 probably would not have happened, and people would be claiming "what threat?"....we dont know what we might have prevented in the future by invading Iraq...but it's better to be safe than sorry as history points out (WWII, 9/11...)
The problem isnt invervention, cos that has existed since after WWII which swung USA from being isolationists to interventionists. Pre-emptive strikes are correct. Short term may be horrible, but the long term is good, and usually fixes any problems that may arise in that short term period.
Saddam is a criminal. enough said. i'm sorry, but no country should have a murderer as their leader...noone wants an oppressive dictator. NOONE, and that is a fact. Iraq, in 5-10 yrs, will be a better place-in everyone's eyes-than it ever was...and who will you and the Iraqi's thank? None other than President George W. Bush.
And remember, hindsight is 20/20....its very easy to say "we should have done this and not that" after a situation...Bush would lose either way--if something did happen concerning Saddam, ppl would complain why Bush didnt invade Iraq...ITS A LOSE-LOSE SENARIO FOR BUSH, AND A WIN-WIN FOR BUSH BASHERS
so, who knows fuck all about the world, current events, and politics? And i'm only 17...thus making me 11 when Yugo was bombed, and i did not give one crap about anything political at that age, so yeh...Political Science here i come next year in Uni...
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Sept 13, 2005 10:07:58 GMT -5
how credible maybe instead of criticizing, you should type your view out... really, the only difference is that Yugo. was more extreme than Iraq considering it was Genocide people claim "it's not our place to fight a war for the Iraqis", yet it IS our place to fight for the Serbs, Africans, whomever...interesting that--typical democrats, always contradicting themselves. Also, about 80% supported the War, that number has dropped significantly bc of the WAY IT WAS HANDLED not really bc of the reasons. Acting on the intel that was provided, the decision was correct. After 9/11, every threat has to be taken seriously. Hypotherical situation: If Bush invaded Afghan. before 9/11 bc he got a report that Al-Qaeda wanted to crash planes into TWC, the response would have been EXACTLY the same. 9/11 probably would not have happened, and people would be claiming "what threat?"....we dont know what we might have prevented in the future by invading Iraq...but it's better to be safe than sorry as history points out (WWII, 9/11...) The problem isnt invervention, cos that has existed since after WWII which swung USA from being isolationists to interventionists. Pre-emptive strikes are correct. Short term may be horrible, but the long term is good, and usually fixes any problems that may arise in that short term period. Saddam is a criminal. enough said. i'm sorry, but no country should have a murderer as their leader...noone wants an oppressive dictator. NOONE, and that is a fact. Iraq, in 5-10 yrs, will be a better place-in everyone's eyes-than it ever was...and who will you and the Iraqi's thank? None other than President George W. Bush. And remember, hindsight is 20/20....its very easy to say "we should have done this and not that" after a situation...Bush would lose either way--if something did happen concerning Saddam, ppl would complain why Bush didnt invade Iraq...ITS A LOSE-LOSE SENARIO FOR BUSH, AND A WIN-WIN FOR BUSH BASHERS I can't be bothered to repeat myself There was a fantastic thread on this back a few months ago, go dig that up if you want to read my opinions on the matter. I got a 2.1 in my law degree where I did a module in International law, which (lo and behold) I got a 2.1 in. The module covered both Kosovo and Iraq. In two weeks time I start my Masters (in Law) and one of my modules is 'Legal Responses to Terrorism.' Believe me, I understand the issues perfectly. So you'll be doing a degree in Political Science? Why waste 3 years of your life?
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Sept 13, 2005 10:20:59 GMT -5
let me also add that i couldn't even be bothered to read your post - i'm sure if i did I would have suffered a prolapse by the anger brought on by your ignorance and inaccuracies.
if you really want me to put you straight, i can do.
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Sept 13, 2005 11:03:45 GMT -5
off topic for noel's barmy army:
your sig should either say:
sie sind ein schrecklicher .... (male c##t) or sie sind eine schreckliche ... (female C##t) or sie sind ein schreckliches .... ( thing c##)
|
|
|
Post by feckarse on Sept 13, 2005 12:07:07 GMT -5
sorry also off topic, could live4evr please change his avatar? i keep thinking i'm reading tam
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 13, 2005 20:00:21 GMT -5
you're missing the point
THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG on these issues, cos they are all OPINIONS.
I may get a 2.1 too on my credentials one day too (whatever that means anyway), but still possess these views.
You're being too simplistic. It's not black and white, if it was, then there would be NO debating what-so-ever going on in the political world.
Example 2+2=4....fact, no argument. U.S did the right thing invading Iraq...not neccessarily depending on what you believe and you're opinions ^do you see where im coming from
i'm entitled to my views, and being called ignorant and such is a bit false. I've followed every event possible since 9/11... i'm a writer for my H.S's (which ranks 3rd in the state of PA) politcal magazine, my grades in history since 9th grade has been: B, A-, B+ (only cos i had a crap teacher, should have been an A- again) Teachers claim they like when i speak up bc i bring a whole nother dimension to class discussion
you may have your 2.1--congrats btw--but i'm not at that level yet, but that means nothing.
You get 2 people in the same room, with the same credentials, and they can, and probably will, argue who is right....there is not clear answer, enough said.
And since you still havnt listed your views, that makes you even less credible.
you prob wont be able to convince me enough to change my overall view, but i might change my position on smaller topics...such as WMD (i believe Saddam had them, where they are now is the mystery---detroyed? sold to terrorists? hidden v well in many of his under ground bunker? see the problem)
right, i think i said all i can for right now
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Sept 14, 2005 5:12:40 GMT -5
off topic for noel's barmy army: your sig should either say: sie sind ein schrecklicher .... (male c##t) or sie sind eine schreckliche ... (female C##t) or sie sind ein schreckliches .... ( thing c##) Thanks Webby ;D But I just took the picture from www.arseblog.com, an Arsenal website. I presume the guy who created the picture just used a online translator or something.
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Sept 15, 2005 22:05:48 GMT -5
And since you still havnt listed your views, that makes you even less credible. Seeing as I'm bored and at a loose end... here we go: - ISSUE NUMBER 1You state the reason why less people support the war is because of the way it has been handled and not because people now disagree with Bush's justifications for war. That's simply wrong. The reasons given before the invasion were that: 1) Iraq was developing a nuclear weapons program - The Bush administration claimed it had satellite images that showed new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites and that;
2) Iraq was developing an 800-mile-plus range missile - which it was prohibited to do.
Furthermore, Bush repetitively lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities as well as its missile-delivery capabilities, trying to install fear inside Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used 'for missions targeting the U.S'.
3) The Bush Administration repeatedly claimed Iraq had a stockpile of Chemical and Biological weapons - "We have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."
4) The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed that Saddam had links to the Al Qaeda network - this misinformation was centrepiece to their arguments for launching the war.
Central to Bush’s claim of Al Qaeda - Saddam connection is the assertion that Czech authorities had evidence of a meeting between Mohammed Atta, one of the alleged hijackers of September 11 attacks, and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001. The above 'reasons' have ALL been proved to be fallacies - put simply the evidence against Saddam Hussein was fabricated from start to finish. Bush warned the world that Saddam Hussein was "a grave and gathering danger" who "continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," making him "an urgent threat to America." "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations," Bush warned. He cited, approvingly, a British report that Iraq could launch weapons on 45 minutes' notice. The American Government lied. It was all scare tactics. We now know Saddam had no serious ties to the Sept 11th 2001 terrorists, and through the United Nations Inspections up to 1998, his nuclear, chemical and biological programs were scrapped. The British report was bogus too. With all the reasons for war having being discredited, is it little wonder that support for the war practically collapsed? I'm inferring from this statement of yours " that number has dropped significantly bc of the WAY IT WAS HANDLED not really bc of the reasons." that you feel that people still accept the reasons given by Bush as to why Iraq was invaded. Are you actually living your life thinking that? It was only in the aftermath of the war and the way that Bush's lies were discredited that the American government attempted to shift the focus on the 'humanitarian crisis' in Iraq. ISSUE NUMBER 2 Again, you've leapt into the issue without considering the finer nuances of the matter. Prima facie, the intelligence gathered by the Americans for the case for war seemed damning. Let us examine the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq:- a)"Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by UN and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the UN Security Council." b)The Bush administration claimed it had satellite images that showed new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. But when the UN inspectors went there, they found "nothing". c)Bush’s admin claimed that some Al Qaeda informant said that radioactive material had been smuggled through airports. ”This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true,” Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief. The UN Inspectors found that the missile flew about 15 miles in their tests. We come onto the biggest lie of them all. How many days since the invasion? How many WMDs found? Precisely. Scott Ritter, former top UN weapons inspector, stated that the viable existence of these agents was impossible: "Through its inspection activities, UNSCOM [the precursor to the current weapons inspection body UNIMOVIC] obtained reasonable information concerning Iraq's chemical weapons activities from 1981 to 1987" "Most of Iraq's associated production equipment had been destroyed, either through aerial bombardment during Operation Desert Storm [the U.S. military's operational designation for the 1991 Gulf War] or under the supervision of UNSCOM inspectors. Iraq's stockpiles of CW agent had either been destroyed in the same manner or could be assumed to have deteriorated." Central to Bush’s claim of Al Qaeda - Saddam connection is the assertion that Czech authorities had evidence of a meeting between Mohammed Atta, one of the alleged hijackers of September 11 attacks, and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001. Both the Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence both refuted this report. Furthermore, in one of his video messages, Bin Laden castigated Saddam Hussein for 'not respecting the principles of Islam' No link was proved before the war and last year, the Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. So the reasons for the invasion were premised upon evidence that consisted of lies, deceit and fabrications and misinformation. Your argument is falling apart Live4evr. ISSUE NUMBER 3Quite simply that is a syllogistic leap you have made there. Under international law, the need to use force in anticipatory self-defence must a)rise to the level of being a necessity, and one that is instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation; and b)the other requirement was that the action taken must be proportionate to the threat and not be excessive. If events had unfolded in the manner proposed in your hypothetical situation, the Americans would have been within their rights to invade Afghanistan. So no, the response wouldn't have been the same - one would have been perfectly legal and justified, Iraq is an illegal and unjustified escapade. ISSUE NUMBER 4The final refuge of the bush supporting scoundrel - dealing in idealist hypotheticals. You'd do well to consider what Iraq was like before 12 years of the crippling US-backed sanctions. 1)Iraq was the only secular country in the Middle East. Christians could go about their daily business without fear - freely wearing a crucifix and going to church. Not really the case now. (In Saudi Arabia, you get your hand cut off for owning a Bible.) 2)Iraq had a flourishing middle class - before the sanctions it had more doctors and dentists per thousand of the population that Britain and the most Ph.D students in the world. Iraq had a first class health service - free to all from OAPs to babies; from rich to poor. The sanctions prohibited everyday items from reaching the Iraqi people. These included bandages blankets boots deodorants dialysis equipment disposable surgical gloves drugs for angina ECG monitors medical gauze medical swabs medical syringes medication for epilepsy oxygen tents sanitary towels Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States, founder of the International Action Centre, and Co-President of the International Commission of Inquiry on Economic Sanctions,believed that the United States of America and others caused the deaths of more than 1,500,000 people including 750,000 children under five, and injury to the entire population of Iraq by genocidal sanctions. UNICEF estimated that 500,000 excess child deaths (under-five) occurred in Iraq between 1991 to 1998. "We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, 15 October 1998. The sanctions continued for 5 more years. It's all very convienient to blame Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately the blame mostly lied elsewhere. I find it ironic that one of the two justifications that America had for the war which can be corroborated - that ordinary Iraqis were suffering in Saddam's Iraq - was mainly because they had fiercely backed the the most pervasive blockade of any country in modern history. (The other justification being that he killed his own people.) And to think I haven't even gone into what Iraq is like today - murder, kidnap, car bombs, suicide bombers etc etc No need to guess who's to blame for the situation on the ground at the moment... sorry, not blame. We must thank the almighty 'War President' Bush for the quasi-paradise Iraqis now live in since Saddam was disposed. Of course, the situation in Iraq will hopefully improve. But no doubt it will be inspite of Bush - not because of him. ISSUE NUMBER 5So we've established that Iraq had no WMDs, no nuclear capabilities, no long range missiles and no links to al-Qaeda. And we've established that information was all available before Iraq was invaded. And somehow he could have been a threat... erm, no. I find this perplexing because this belief of yours can not be based on anything other than the Bush Administrations lies. See earlier quotes from Scott Ritter. In conclusion, the answer is you. I sincerely hope you have read this and given serious consideration to the many valid points I have made here. I didn't write this many words and spend this much time on this post if I didn't think it would challenge the views you currently hold.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 16, 2005 18:54:38 GMT -5
well done, this is the response i wanted.
Now if i really wanted to, i could counter those will much better examples then just my opinion which has already been stated, but im 17 and i really cant be bothered to do research right now just to prove my point on a forum lol.
One thing though, i dont think Bush 'lied'. We may have been mislead in this war, but that was based on the intel. The intel may have been wrong, but that doesnt mean Bush 'lied'.
One thing you didnt address was having a criminal as the leader of a country. Yeh i know its not our place to say who can lead what country...but surely noone wants a murderer, someone whose killed his own people to be the leader.
The truth is is that we wont know the full truth until decades from now when all the reports come out and what happens in the future. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe your wrong, maybe we're both partially right...but as we stand now, we don't know, and thus the debate will continue until there is an actual answer.
btw, what do you mean by saying that "i shouldnt waste my time in political science"....do you mean that spitefully cos im atleast 10yrs younger then you and thus had a 'weaker' argument, or bc pre-law and such would be more worthwhile...
^opinion on that would be appreciated, applying to colleges now, and George Washington University tops my list, going early decision there possibly
anyway, your points have been considered and there are a few items i agree with, however, i think the war was correct...i mean, Saddam stopping inspectors from inspecting where they were 'allowed' is not only suspicious, but is also a reason itself to go to war...plus he was given an ultimatum of atleast 30days (give up any weapons, give up power...criminal-crimes against humanity!!, let inspectors inspect what they want...any of those 3 would have sufficed in preventing the war)...of course it was unreleastic cos no megalomaniac is going to give up power without a fight...but i think the fact that Saddam is going to get the death penalty speaks for itself...he truly was the Hitler of the modern era
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Sept 16, 2005 22:08:07 GMT -5
well done, this is the response i wanted. Now if i really wanted to, i could counter those will much better examples then just my opinion which has already been stated, but im 17 and i really cant be bothered to do research right now just to prove my point on a forum lol. Can't be bothered or simply can't? Hmmm.... In regards to these 'much better examples' of yours - you know you can't just make them up right? The arguments Bush used were based on evidence that simply wasn't true - the evidence he presented was all discredited at the time and continues to be discredited. His apologists - like you - prefer to say he was 'misled' by his intelligence services. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... I'll say it is a duck. Your lot would probably say it is a waterfowl species that can fly. full truth about what? You want the truth about iraq's links to al-qaeda - it's already out - there aren't any. You want the truth about iraq's WMD - it's already out - there aren't any. You want the truth about Iraq's nuclear capabilities - it's already out - there wasn't any. You don't pay attention do you? What dimension would that be? The obtuse and undiscerning dimension? That would make me at least 27 ....I've only just turned 21 if you must know. The 4 year age difference doesn't discredit your argument... ...not being able to rely on any facts to back up any of your points means you have the weaker argument. Incoherent ramblings^^^ Where do I begin? Let's start with Saddam's supposed non-compliance with the UN Inspectors Oh wait - once again you're spouting shit and that wasn't the case "After a period of somewhat reluctant co-operation there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January," Hans Blix, March 8, 2003 What part of the fact that UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of underground chemical or biological production or storage facilities in Iraq did you fail to understand? Perhaps I should be forced to give up my unicorn or my magic carpet too... It is the only point that you have that can't be argued with. But it isn't a justification for war. Bush didn't invade Iraq because he is a magnanimous humanitarian - where's the US and the UK invasions of China and Zimbabwe? When you reply to this, try and avoid repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I live in hope...
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Sept 16, 2005 22:12:47 GMT -5
related thought... hhmmm...clinton's blow job will not affect my daughter's future like this admin's shit will...
well...clinton did fuck the democratic party tho with his escapades....so... maybe i am mad at bill ?
ah well.. quoting a military person i chatted with the other day - "everyone dislikes america now - including ourselves... "
|
|
|
Post by britishlove on Sept 16, 2005 22:18:13 GMT -5
related thought... hhmmm...clinton's blow job will not affect my daughter's future like this admin's shit will... well...clinton did fuck the democratic party tho with his escapades....so... maybe i am mad at bill ? ah well.. quoting a military person i chatted with the other day - "everyone dislikes america now - including ourselves... " perfect quote. kinda sad eh?
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Sept 16, 2005 22:20:08 GMT -5
related thought... hhmmm...clinton's blow job will not affect my daughter's future like this admin's shit will... well...clinton did fuck the democratic party tho with his escapades....so... maybe i am mad at bill ? ah well.. quoting a military person i chatted with the other day - "everyone dislikes america now - including ourselves... " perfect quote. kinda sad eh? yeah....
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 16, 2005 23:11:23 GMT -5
dude, first off i CAN counter what you said. You've taken the time to find quotes and sources....i'm not going to do that. If this was a paper, an editoral, whatever, then i would, but i'm not going to research this now at 11.46pm.
I get my opinions from the tv, newspapers, editorals, offical websites etc...and i can relate them back to things weve studied in school too if needed.
Remember, my school is ranked in the top 3 private schools of PA...impressive innit. My grades are solid and i analyze v well. You may not like what i say, but that doesnt make it wrong. There really is no true answer to anything concerning the Iraqi war, dems believe one thing, repubs believe another.
And for your duck analogy, i would say thats abit stupid. After some research is done, it may not be a duck at all...if you see where im coming from.
If you're 21, then you are acting v imaturely. Not once have i criticized you...your arguments should speak for themselves if you were that confident in them.
Fact is, your 21, im 17. Your well into college, im in my last year of highschool. Of course your arguments will sound more convincing cos uve studied the topic in depth...but in 4 yrs, that will be me and i will have studied it in depth too but with a different perception. So 4 yrs from now we can have a serious debate.
And i will repeat this: Saddam could easily have had WMD -he had many under ground bunkers, who knows if weve found/searched them all -he could have easily of sold them to terrorists -he could have destroyed them just before the war began
and yes, he may never have had them at all. But to continue to claim that a guy who gassed his own people.; a guy who was atleast v interested in such weapons and who we knew was atleast trying to acquire them, is foolish.
Saddam was a potential threat to the U.S, and dictator who slaughtered thousands of innocent iraqis.
Heres something interesting. Saddam has killed more Iraqi's then the casualties of this war since it began in 2003. That speaks for itself.
At the end of the day we are helping previously oppressed Iraq's. Good will come of this. Maybe not what the U.S set out to achieve, but nonetheless the country should unite...why have ppl advocating a U.S struggle just to see Bush and republican party fail? thats pathetic and shallow...the fact is that the war has happened, and we will continue fighting until the insurgents are no longer capable of creating chaos and until Iraq has set up their own gov. To pull out now would be crazy and foolish.
Just remember, hindsight is always 20/20.
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Sept 17, 2005 21:19:55 GMT -5
dude, first off i CAN counter what you said. You've taken the time to find quotes and sources....i'm not going to do that. If this was a paper, an editoral, whatever, then i would, but i'm not going to research this now at 11.46pm. Okay. Well do you remember posting this? or this even? I'm getting a feint whiff of hypocrisy and an almost over-powering smell of bullshit from practically everything you've posted in this thread. You say you can counter what I've said. Well go ahead and do it ass clown. I'd love to read them. One more time because it doesn't seem to be getting through... 1) On the WMDs
a) Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector said no evidence of underground chemical or biological production or storage facilities could be found in Iraq on March 8th 2003. (A few days before the first airstrikes were launched.)
and finally now
b) Intelligence officials have confirmed the US has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They say the chief US investigator, Charles Duelfer, is not planning to return to the country.
Mr Duelfer reported that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. Wednesday, 12 January, 2005On the links to al-Qaeda
a) A United Nations committee says it has found no evidence of a connection between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terror network. 27 June, 2003
and here is a quote from the horse's mouth before the war
b)From a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003.
[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.
and finally now
c) the Sept. 11 commission reported that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. The commission had access to highly classified U.S. intelligence June 17, 2004
Thanks for the great advice. Maybe I should write it down in case I forget it. You'll do well to notice I have given you quotes pre AND post war. Hindsight is wonderful that's true. But what is better is when it confirms what was already known. If you jump down a flight of stairs and break your leg after someone who has a broken leg because he made the same jump has already told you repeatedly not to make that jump, would you say how were you supposed to know you that the jump would break your leg and that hindsight is a fine thing? I hope not... Here's something else that might interest you The Senate Intelligence Committee's Chairman Pat Roberts said the information that America went to war with last year was flawed and Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller said Congress never would have backed the Iraq war if lawmakers knew then what they know now. The panel released a report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq, saying many intelligence assessments were exaggerated or flat-out wrong. July 9, 2004 So come on!!! Let's read your evidence! What do you know that the United Nations, the 9/11 Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee don't know? Please? Well what else would something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck be? A dog? A pig? An ill-informed 17 year old who can't engage in a debate so he keeps repeating himself? The analogy obviously went over your head - not that that surprises me. Why don't you read what I've posted and take it on board? Then next time an American President opens his mouth think to yourself, "I must not blindly believe everything my President tells me. I can read and I have brain. I will research the issue myself, critically analyse it and then come to my own conclusion." You realise I've probably saved you four years of your life with that last paragraph? And you don't even have to send me the money your parents were going to waste, I mean spend on your Political Science degree as a thank you. Also, I'm not going to wait four years for you to actually learn about what happened. The info is out there. In fact, I've pretty much done all the work for you. You have admitted you haven't studied the topic in depth - that is truly a revelation...I mean there was no way of knowing until you admitted it... But you still maintain the war was justified...a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing eh? This doesn't even make sense. Have you started to foam at the mouth in anger at the fact the little bubble you're living in has burst? Engaging in a debate when you have no arguments that can be substantiated is one thing. Not being able to write coherent sentences is another all together. You haven't actually read anything I've written have you? The Americans allege that Saddam Hussein probably killed in the region of 1 million Iraqis Even official U.N. reports document that nearly 1 million Iraqis died - mostly the young and the elderly - as a direct result of American backed sanction. Other expert estimates put the number at somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million -- half under the age of 5 died between 1991-1999 . You want to compare and contrast who's killed more Iraqis? And look who is still killing Iraqis? I know you're a little dim so let me point you in the right direction, it isn't Saddam. You know what? We actually agree whole-heartedly on something here. What I hate about some members of the pro-war fanatics is the attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq by claiming Iraq was a threat. In a strange twist I can actually accept it when those who are pro-war just say that America should be able to do what it likes to protect its' interests. Colonising Iraq now means America control the 2nd largest Oil reserves in the world, gives Israel more security and provides a buffer between the more moderate Arab states and Iran. I completely disagree with that but somehow I can't argue with it because it is a well construction point of view. Another point - don't think that I am a democrat because I am anti-war. Typical of the 'you're either with us or against us' mentality people like you have. You may not know much about the UK political landscape but here's a rough guide:- You have the Republican Party, the equivalent here is the Conservative Party. For the Democrats, we have the Labour Party. In the UK elections in June 2005, I voted Conservative. They were pro-war but it didn't stop me voting for them because generally speaking I prefer their manifesto. Funnily enough, you and I are (politically speaking) closer than you may think. Anyway, I may not check back here for a week or so - there is much university related activities about to begin ( ;D)!!! So please take the time to 'find quotes and sources' you say you have. I have posted pre AND post war quotes and sources throwing doubt on everything George Bush said in the run up to and in the aftermath of the war. It's alright for you to gloss over all the facts and say the war was justified but I'm guessing you'd never have the strength of your convictions to stand up infront of a group of families who have lost their loved ones to the Iraq war and say that Iraq was a real and major threat to the United States and that their lives were not lost in vain. Even George W Bush tries to avoid them... Cindy Sheehan anyone? What right does she have to ask the almighty and all knowing 'war president' why the war that took her son's life was started? Troublesome woman I'd really love it if you were to write her an email telling her that it is okay that her son is dead because Iraq had links to al-qaeda, had/was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and that iraq had a substantial WMD program. I know you don't like research so here cindy.live.radicaldesigns.org/modinput4.php?modin=51click on the link and away you go. But back to you. You realise you will be enlightening the world this this information of yours!
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Sept 17, 2005 21:30:45 GMT -5
An afterthought, why have I wasted so much time on you? You clearly don't care about the facts or the fact that people are dying. You sit there in your little bubble without a care in the world. You certainly have no care for the families who have lost their loved ones and no care for the Iraqi people either. Go enrol when you turn 18. You can go to University anytime but this war is so fundamental to American safety that surely a man with the strength of his convictions like you will go and fight? Thought not. When you go to bed tonight, do think of the men and women out in Iraq, fighting this illegal and unjust war. And do say a little prayer for the families who are grieving for their dead children. Remember to email Cindy too.
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Sept 17, 2005 21:34:31 GMT -5
cheers barmy army...there's no way the current admin. will dig their way outta this hole.. there will be hell to pay unfortunately... nuff said..
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 17, 2005 22:57:27 GMT -5
first off, dont get me started about Cindy. She claims that the "U.S is not worth dying for"...THEN WHY WAS YOUR SON IN THE ARMY!!! THERE IS NO DRAFT.
I hate that when parents whinge about that...sure its sad...but when your child joins the army, he/she understands that there is a risk of going to war at any given time. It's the 18yr old+ decision when there is no draft. So to turn that onto the President is pathetic.
V few ppl support Cindy. She is poorly educated and makes outrageous claims. Yes she has the right to protest at al but no well educated person will take her seriously. George W Bush advoids her bc shes frankly not worth his time. MSNBC interviewed another parent who lost his child to the war, and Cindy used his name in the protest without his concent. He still supports the war, and his other son will be joining the army next year when he's 18. Cindy's voice shouldnt be louder then anyothers, shes not even worth my time, so i will end this Cindy rant now.
Another thing....once again i have to repeat this cos you fail to see it...THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER ATM!!! This debate would not be happening if you were 100% correct, or if i was 100% correct. People will devote the rest of their lives to figure this issue out. But im entiled to my view, as you are to yours.
and btw, i wanted you to give ur view, which you have done, but you resulted to name-calling, which is incredibly immature. As i stated earlier, if your so confident, let your facts speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 17, 2005 23:04:16 GMT -5
heres my article that will be published in the first edition of this school years political magazine. The theme was intervention, and i decided to write the majority of the article on economic intevention considering i intered with my dad in Russia this past summer for 5 weeks and he is the manager of a microfinance brance. So, am i really this uneducated 17yr old? no. and btw, i wanted this to be controversial bc conflict yields debate, and i love debates. --- America has consistently intervened in world affairs since the country became a superpower after World War II. In 1961 Kennedy attempted to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro. In 1974 Nixon was able to negotiate disengagement agreements between Israel and its opponents, Egypt and Syria. And in the 1990s Bill Clinton successfully dispatched peace keeping forces to war stricken Bosnia along with dealing with Saddam Hussein when Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. These are just some of the presidents who have intervened since World War II, but there are many other examples of instances when presidents became engaged in helping the world. Not every intervention will be or has been successful. The invasion of Cuba and Vietnam are the prime examples of recent failures. However, there is only one superpower in the world, and that is the United States. Some government has to maintain world stability through both military and financial means and that role belongs to the strongest country.
The citizens of countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and the countries of Africa cannot fight their oppressive dictators by themselves. They are too weak compared to their leader and thus need help. [schools name], along with other schools, is an advocate of halting genocide in Africa, and this is an important goal which deserves to be supported. However, the majority of the people who support this action were against the 2003 Iraqi war. What is interesting is that there is very little difference between the two situations. Both regions had oppressive regimes with violence occurring everyday. In fact, the majority of Americans supported the Iraqi war in the beginning but once the news depicted how long the U.S was taking to stabilize the region, support for the war dropped dramatically. New governments are not constructed immediately. Such a big step takes time and that is what needs to be understood and accepted. In ten years or so when Iraq is stabilized, the war will been seen to have been worth it. The issue is not whether should America get involved, because throughout history America has and will continue to become involved in international issues. The real issue is deciding to what extent and how America should intervene. It is invalid to claim that it is not America’s place to fight a war for the Iraqi’s because if that attitude is taken then it is not America’s place to help the Africans defeat genocide, or to help the Israelis in their conflict and so on. The latter two are examples of what are deemed to be worthwhile efforts. So, again, it makes very little sense to ask why Iraq should be any different.
However, military action is not the only type of intervention that exists. Financial assistance is just as important in helping the world with some of its problems, especially poverty. This summer I interned in Samara, Russia with FINCA, a U.S based non-profit institution. FINCA is one of many micro finance operations active throughout the world. Micro finance is the concept of a micro finance bank, or another type of financial company, providing ‘micro loans’ as a means to spur development in third world and emerging countries. The loans are made to individuals to help them either start or to develop their own small businesses and are quite small, usually ranging from $20-$100, but can range up to $15,000, or even more. Such loans provide access to capital to poor people that usually do not otherwise have access to credit due to economic, cultural, or historic issues. Samara is a regional city in what can be considered to be a developing economy. Buildings are run down, sick, homeless dogs litter the streets and, most importantly, significant numbers of Samara’s decent citizens are poor. The conditions show that the Russian government does not care enough about the regional cities and so America and other countries help by providing assistance to people so that they can improve their living conditions. Everyday people are out on the street selling vegetables and other basic necessities of life in hope of making enough money to live on. FINCA helps such people, whether their business is located on the streets, or in an actual market. By loaning small amounts of money, such businesses have a chance to flourish and become more successful.
The main problem, though, is that there are limits. Just like the American military cannot possibly help every oppressed nation, the financial firms cannot reach the poorest of the poor. The very poorest people usually do not even have their own small business. However, this does not mean financial help is useless. The United Nations has labeled the year 2005 as the year of micro finance, which depicts just how strong and important this program is. The significance of the U.N recognition is that more focus will be devoted to building inclusive, financial sectors along with strengthening the powerful, but underused, “entrepreneurial spirit which exists in communities around the world.”(www.un.org) Along with 2005 being the official year for micro finance, the U.N has also set up a list of goals to meet by the year 2015. These objectives have been identified as the UN Millennium Development Goals. The goals consist of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and developing a global partnership for development. Some of these eight goals overlap with the purpose of micro finance. With the juxtaposition of Millennium Goals and micro finance, extreme impoverishing conditions can be alleviated. Micro finance may not be able to eliminate poverty by itself, but it does contribute in improving situations in developing and transitional countries and is an important form of intervention.
Intervention has always existed and will always exist. Sometimes intervention is not possible to conduct peacefully. Even if the main goal in Iraq was to reduce poverty, it would have had to be done through military means. It is basically impossible to help a country through financial means with a powerful and brutal dictator at the realm. The Iraqi war was able to achieve many objectives. The Iraqis are now free, a better government is in the process of being constructed and the world knows that there is no longer a threat of WMD, at least not from Iraq. On the financial front, countries such as Russia and those in Africa are being given the opportunity for their citizens to possess a better way of life. Micro finance does not give money to the poor per say, but rather lends the money allowing the people to work for their rights and freedoms. By the people repaying the loans, this money can then be ‘recycled’ into new loans. Micro finance in conjunction with the Live 8 concerts and maybe the G8 summit will, at the very least, make people aware of worldwide poverty and in doing so help alleviate the problem. The fight is not just for Russians or for Africans, but rather for the whole world.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 17, 2005 23:26:15 GMT -5
i had to write a book review on the second book i read over the summer (theme was clash of cultures), we were required to read The Kite Runner--which was act v good, and another book dealing with clash of cultures. I picked a nuclear terrorism book. This review was due last tuesday and i expect to get it back monday or tuesday this week. Probably with a B+/A- grade. Purpose of this is to show you how i write and to prove that if i REALLY wanted to, i could produce a stunning reply to your points, truth is i dont have enough time (Senior yr grades matter alot in the first quarter, SAT tutoring, soccer everyday in which i dont get home til 6 or 6.30...so i am BUSY)...i like my mini rant lol...just shows u how engaged i can become in politics ---
Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe
The threat of a nuclear attack on the United States has existed since the start of the Cold War in the 1950’s. However, since 9/11, the threat of nuclear terrorism has grown. Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network has been trying to acquire a nuclear bomb for at least a decade, and may have been successful in their goal. Even if that terror network still does not possess any weapons of mass destruction, there are other networks that might. Hamas is one such group. The threat of a nuclear terrorist attack is very real and very grave and many books have been written about this topic. Graham Allison outlines the threat and what can be done to prevent such a disaster in his book “Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.”
What makes this a solid book is the amount of detail and research that has been done by Allison. Every fact is footnoted and evaluated and this makes the book more credible. The first half is devoted to explaining the different types of terrorist networks, why the West is hated, where and how nuclear materials may have been acquired, and the devastating effects should such weapons be used. The second half deals with the issue of preventing such a tragedy. What makes the book interesting is the detail in describing why the U.S is hated, which is mainly due to the interventionist policies in the Arab world that have existed since the end of World War II. The clash of cultures between the East and West plays a predominant role in why terrorist networks such as Al-Qaeda exist. Allison does not excuse terrorist action, but simply depict their reasoning toward the terror they portray.
Another intriguing issue brought up by Allison is the specific threat and aftermath of nuclear terrorism. According to terrorism experts, Al-Qaeda has a plan dubbed “American Hiroshima” which consists of setting off seven nuclear bombs simultaneously in the United States. If this attack took place, then the United States would truly be in extreme trouble. Not only would the cities in which the bombs went off be obliterated, but the economy would be devastated, thus even producing a world wide economic effect. This plot may seem far fetched at first, but when examined further, the plan is quite possible considering that Al-Qaeda wants to inflict more damage than 9/11 in their next assault on the U.S. Also, the 9/11 plot was considered far fetched on 9/10, so to rule out any possibilities would be naïve. Understanding the terrorist plots is itself one good reason for reading this book. The “American Hiroshima” plot has been ignored by all major television networks, not because the plot is necessarily impossible to pull off, but rather because it would create so much chaos and panic among the general public. By reading Allison’s book, information is uncovered that the reader may have never even known about because the media does not tell the full story, or sometimes any of the story at all.
Some may dismiss this book as an economic ploy for Graham Allison, however; he is a very credible author. Graham Allison was the founding dean of Harvard’s modern John F. Kennedy School of Government and is the director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Douglas Professor of Government. Allison also served as special advisor to the secretary of defense under President Reagan and as assistant secretary of defense under President Clinton. Allison’s reputation and credentials show that his book should be taken seriously. Everyone needs to consider the worst case scenario so that they are prepared should such an event take place. Allison does a commendable job in informing the public about the threat and how to react to the event itself.
There were, however, a few tedious parts in the book. Allison described how to enrich uranium, which is important to know but was very dull to read about. It is important to understand what the media is talking about, so when reports say that “Iran is enriching uranium” then the reader will understand what that process is. But Allison describes that process for five to ten pages which became laborious to read because all it seemed like another lesson in physics which the average reader would have trouble following. That is the main complaint about this book. Too much of the information is technical, not really irrelevant, but rather, difficult to understand at times. Overall Graham Allison’s nuclear terrorism book is a must read for people who wish to understand how serious the threat from Al-Qaeda and other groups are. This book must be taken seriously as the threat is very serious. “Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe” allows the reader to see what other cultures think of the United States as well as the danger that those cultures possess all in an overall easy-to-follow manner.
|
|