Bush to be arrested?

[izoot]

Hi Qax...

Qax: Iraq was disarming. And even if they weren't totally, so what? Do you propose.....everytime someone does something against the wishes of the UN, it gets taken over in a bloody invasion? Actually aren't we right now, defying the UN? So now shouldn't they take us over in a bloody seige, according to you?

zoot: >>even if they weren't totally, so what<<< Well thats a great statement. There is no so what...it was not an option to not completely disarm...especially with the fact that they were not reveling any of the WMD's that they HAVE.
1441 did not have a "so what " clause in it... it was everything.

Qax: Iraq was complying almost completely with 1441, and even if they were supposed to fully......that doesn't automatically mean they get taken over in a bloody seige. What exactly is your position? If someone you really don't like, isn't 100% defenseless against you, you take them over? Iraq was doing just about everything the UN was asking, and the US was characterizing their efforts as next to nothing.

Zoot: Thats a lie....for 12 years Iraq has done nothing to comply and then 1441 comes about which specifically states that he fully disarm and he ( sodumb ) throws a few things out as everything he has. And ya it does mean automatically they get taken over...it was stated in 1441... THe sc voted 15-0 for it.
It wasn't about him being totally defensless it was about where the vx gas it was about where the long range warheads were...its about where the 11 tons of bioweapons are. Iraq is known for keeping meticulos records...they can't produce a scrap of evidence it was destroyed. Saddam in no meaningful way complied...he did his best to bs us all just like the last 12 years.

qax: And it's almost funny you should accuse all of doing what they're doing because of money or resources. You say that as if they're the ones who are doing the extremeist thing, or they are the one's out of whack with popular opinoin? No France isn't out of line with the world population opinoin......YOU sir are.

zoot: Well aren't they they are siding with a country that has gassed its own people, murder and torture them dail for looking the wrong way..financially supporting terrorist groups. They are acting as if in bed with them making excuses and ....protecting the their money. Well probably find 3 words on all the weapons we find..."Made in France". OO obtw...France did say that if we find wmd they will come into the fray....nice backpeddaling france stand your ground
As o world opinion...I think I read that 57% still approve of the way...that puts me and dragon in the majority and you in the minority.

qax: But back to you accusing these countries of doing what they are for economic gain.....is it more likely that the US is doing that, or.....that LIST of countries you gave? They are the ones in line with popular PHILSOPHICAL will. The United States is the one already contracting out who will get to run the oil wells after we take Iraq over (dick cheneys' old company Halo burtain). The US are the ones trying to bribe people into helping support our efforts even though it's against the will of their population. The US is the one threatening to take away humanitarian AID packages, to try to force other countries not to vote with their philsophical ideals. You are denying the obvious, right in front of your face....The United States is the one doing this for economical reasons.

Zoot: ooo sorry I forgot..this war is because US wants the oil and cheny wants the construction contracts. BTW...us has said all oil money goes into a trust for the Iraqi people. I'm not approving of who gets what contracts...thats not the issue here... thats just a way for you to diverth te point.
OO and your right again, the us is doing this for economical reasons lol! You obviously have no idea what this costs....far more than they would get back even if the US did subscribe to your conspiracy theory.

qax: You don't like the UN izoot, but the other option is having the country with the best military totally run the show - and I wouldn't be surprised if you wanted that, now being that the people who do happen to have the biggest bombs right now, totally support your unpopular beliefs. But what if Saddam was the one with 10,000 nukes, and we were the ones trying to go to a worldwide vote (and had them on our side)?

zoot: Well I'm personally for building a broadbased moderate iraqi government...but if you want to get into How poorly 1 entity could manage things we could talk about the useless nations.... They administer the Jenin refugee camp...Being that in is under the UNRWA... there is to be no terrorist activity allowed...UNRWA did knowlingly allow weapons factorys..terrorist traning camps...as well as all the nicities that go with that. That example has been repeated over and over by the UN..is that your example of a well run governemtn body??? They watch and support the terrorists...I have a trust issue with people like that.

qax: Democracy is more likely to weed out extremist views, than just letting the guy on the block with the biggest guns do whatever they want. It's more likely for 1 country to go off the deep end, than the majority of civilizations and cultures in the world.

zoot: Please don't take this the wrong way...but this is what you sound like blah blah blah blah. Please don't imply tha Sodumb and a number of other non-democratic "nations" are not a threat to your freedom and mine. As Bush said...they have a similar belief..."if your not with us you against us" the difference is these people will blow you up...poision you...shoot you... etc.

Things changed with 9-11..they will never be the same. I don't wish that you or your country experience something like that. But if it happens, I'm sure your veiws will be much less....well they haven't done anything yet...lets wait a bit mor e and see.

And please I would love to see you address some of the issues with the un in my above post.

Thanks
and
Peace
really

 

[Qax]

First, I said it was MORE LIKELY for a broadbased world democratic body would be extremeist, and not that you couldn't find a counter-example. If 8 out of 9 dentist recommend crest, and 1 out of 9 recommend not brushing your teeth at all - 8 out of 9 could be wrong......as you have pointed out with your "the majority of the world used to think the world was flat" argument, but just because both CAN be wrong, doesn't mean the probabilities of them both being wrong are equal. Given the VAST difference in support against invading and taking over Iraq vs. not, I think it's safe to assume that's the philsophy of the vast majority of people.

Second, I understand you don't like Syria. But one people's terrorist is another people's freedom fighter. I won't argue with you, and me try to argue they're not bad - I'll take your word for it that they're a very bad and cruel people. However, a lot of people think the United States is close to being as bad as them.....the will of the world's people wouldn't want us chairing anything either, and I assure you we do.

Third, I think I have a pretty well understanding of how things are run in the UN. Some chairmenships are changed on a rotation basis.....so Syria being the chair of a specific committee, just might be because of some rotation. I further know, whoever "chairs" a committee doesn't have a lot of power. EVERYTHING is run by letting everyone involved vote. The chairmanship for all I know, does nothing more than procedural things in the meetings (that are set anyway) and possibly take the minutes of the meetings. For instance, the counsil that blix and barod reported to - Blix himself was chosen by majority vote - I don't believe the chair holds any REAL power in most of those meetings. So, frankly, who cares who is opening the meetings and taking the minutes? In the end, I believe everything done is voted on - and I know how you don't like that democracy thing.....but that's how things are run in the good ole UN.

As far as you saying Iraq was not at all disarming. Blix and Barod said otherwise. Blix said "they're not exactly getting rid of toothpicks, these are major weapons." They did almost everything that they were asked to by blix and barod, according to them themselves. But I guess you would know better than them.....better than blix himself and some of the world's best scientists, who happened to actually be there, unlike yourself.

Originally posted by draqon
Qax, the United Nations encourages and legitimizes terrorism by allowing countries such as Syria to sit as Head of its security counsel. Your arguments, strictly theoretical, that the United Nations works as a moderating influence is absurd, because if that was true it would never have allowed as insane a country as Syria to be in the Security Counsel. History has shown us that given the opportunity, the "majority of civilizations and cultures in the world" will go off the deep end quite quickly.

Iraq is not disarming whatsoever. It simply is carting around its biological and chemical weapons from one neighbor to another, staying one step ahead of the inspectors.

 

[Qax]

izoot, I will try to deal with you now:

"Qax: Iraq was disarming. And even if they weren't totally, so what? Do you propose.....everytime someone does something against the wishes of the UN, it gets taken over in a bloody invasion? Actually aren't we right now, defying the UN? So now shouldn't they take us over in a bloody seige, according to you?



zoot: >>even if they weren't totally, so what<<< Well thats a great statement. There is no so what...it was not an option to not completely disarm...especially with the fact that they were not reveling any of the WMD's that they HAVE.
1441 did not have a "so what " clause in it... it was everything.

Qax: Iraq was complying almost completely with 1441, and even if they were supposed to fully......that doesn't automatically mean they get taken over in a bloody seige. What exactly is your position? If someone you really don't like, isn't 100% defenseless against you, you take them over? Iraq was doing just about everything the UN was asking, and the US was characterizing their efforts as next to nothing.

Zoot: Thats a lie....for 12 years Iraq has done nothing to comply and then 1441 comes about which specifically states that he fully disarm and he ( sodumb ) throws a few things out as everything he has. And ya it does mean automatically they get taken over...it was stated in 1441... THe sc voted 15-0 for it.
It wasn't about him being totally defensless it was about where the vx gas it was about where the long range warheads were...its about where the 11 tons of bioweapons are. Iraq is known for keeping meticulos records...they can't produce a scrap of evidence it was destroyed. Saddam in no meaningful way complied...he did his best to bs us all just like the last 12 years."

Now let me do that with you.

izoot: If you don't comply with the UN or a UN resolution, the UN should take your country over in a bloody seige!

Qax: I'm sorry you're upset we didn't take over Iraq sooner.....and Israel.....and now the United States. The United States right now is defying the spirit of the UN's wishes. It is my position, there are many remodies for a country not complying with a UN resolution.....it doesn't have to be your country is taken over in a bloody siege killing many of your civilizans. And for you to say Iraq wasn't complying in a meaningful way, I think is just a stupid statement. Again, the UN was saying they were........you can characterize their support in any way you'd like, but the UN itself said they were mostly.

You complain that Iraq was defying a resolution for so long....and I understand, but again....SO WHAT? How many countries did Iraq invade in that time? What agreessive action did they take towards the US in that time? THEY WERE CONTAINED. I don't think we should take over countries just because they thumb their nose at us - but only when countries actually attack us.....and not only did Iraq not do anything like that, they weren't even a threat to us. So we're taking over a country that isn't even a threat to us, much less one that actually attacked us.

""qax: And it's almost funny you should accuse all of doing what they're doing because of money or resources. You say that as if they're the ones who are doing the extremeist thing, or they are the one's out of whack with popular opinoin? No France isn't out of line with the world population opinoin......YOU sir are.

zoot: Well aren't they they are siding with a country that has gassed its own people, murder and torture them dail for looking the wrong way..financially supporting terrorist groups. They are acting as if in bed with them making excuses and ....protecting the their money. Well probably find 3 words on all the weapons we find..."Made in France". OO obtw...France did say that if we find wmd they will come into the fray....nice backpeddaling france stand your ground
As o world opinion...I think I read that 57% still approve of the way...that puts me and dragon in the majority and you in the minority.

qax: But back to you accusing these countries of doing what they are for economic gain.....is it more likely that the US is doing that, or.....that LIST of countries you gave? They are the ones in line with popular PHILSOPHICAL will. The United States is the one already contracting out who will get to run the oil wells after we take Iraq over (dick cheneys' old company Halo burtain). The US are the ones trying to bribe people into helping support our efforts even though it's against the will of their population. The US is the one threatening to take away humanitarian AID packages, to try to force other countries not to vote with their philsophical ideals. You are denying the obvious, right in front of your face....The United States is the one doing this for economical reasons.

Zoot: ooo sorry I forgot..this war is because US wants the oil and cheny wants the construction contracts. BTW...us has said all oil money goes into a trust for the Iraqi people. I'm not approving of who gets what contracts...thats not the issue here... thats just a way for you to diverth te point.
OO and your right again, the us is doing this for economical reasons lol! You obviously have no idea what this costs....far more than they would get back even if the US did subscribe to your conspiracy theory."

The Iraq government has done some bad stuff. So has the United States government. But I won't argue with you about this stuff - Saddam is a pretty bad guy.

Zoot, you were accusing all those countries of doing stuff for their own financial gain, and yet you think it's ludacris when someone thinks the US is doing the same. The people of France, Germany, Great Britain, China, Russia are all ungodly against taking over Iraq. So why would you even accusing the countries of doing this for some financial gain? It's called democracy when the heads of a state do something because the people of the country want them to do something.

France, China, and Russia were all against this, even though it COSTED them money. There is now a boycott against French goods - costing them money. Russia and China are now getting flak from the US. They did this not for political capital, but because they were standing up for what they believed in, even if it did cost them.

Now onto the US. I can't quite figure out why the US is doing this, and now. I do know the rational they gave for doing this, wouldn't even fly with draqon's dog. So I ask myself why then? And then I read that the administration months ago was working out a deal for Haloburtain to take over Iraq's wells after we took them over......the company Dick Cheney used to work at. I don't think overall the United States would gain money from this war - I do believe it costs the country money. The gov has tricked the people into thinking this is a fight against an immediate and credible threat.....gets them to pay for it, and then Bush's oil buddies end up running the oil wells and getting a very nice kickback for their services. So the US overall loses money, but the oil buddies of Bush come away very nicely. You have to understand I don't think Bush is doing this to get a lot of nice money for the United States people..........he's a corporate interest man.........it'll just go to a few heads at Haloburtain, while the war gets faught by the poor and middle class, and paid for by John Q. Taxpayer.

To address what you said about world opinion. You would be so egocentric to think that US opinion numbers equal world opinion numbers. You said 57% of the world was for this war, but I know that info is as reliable as a plumber's estimate. Without UN backing, I would be shocked if more than 20% of the world is for the war. About 60% of the people in the US are for it without the UN, but no other country besides Israel is even close to 50%........so I can't imagine in my wildest dreams that those two countries have so much pull out of 6 billion people that the overall the support would wide would be 57%.

I've seen the numbers from the US, Germany, France, Turkey, and I think Spain.

Without UN backing, the #s of Germany and France were about 10% if I recall recorrect. Turkey, without UN backing was 5% for it, 95% again. The US was about 60%. Spain I believe was maybe 20%. Our best buddy Great Britians people, without UN backing weren't even 10% for it. Our BEST BUDDY - not even 1 in 10 were for us doing this. The #s of worldwide citizens that were for this, was ABIZIMAL, and if you believe 57% of the world is for it, you need some help, imo.

Again I submit, in this argument, you zoot are the radical, and not me. You have the radical opinion, by far. The % of the world that agrees with you is maybe at the most 15-20%, MAYBE. But maybe the rest of the whole world is wrong, and you're just so much smarter than us.

"qax: You don't like the UN izoot, but the other option is having the country with the best military totally run the show - and I wouldn't be surprised if you wanted that, now being that the people who do happen to have the biggest bombs right now, totally support your unpopular beliefs. But what if Saddam was the one with 10,000 nukes, and we were the ones trying to go to a worldwide vote (and had them on our side)?

zoot: Well I'm personally for building a broadbased moderate iraqi government...but if you want to get into How poorly 1 entity could manage things we could talk about the useless nations.... They administer the Jenin refugee camp...Being that in is under the UNRWA... there is to be no terrorist activity allowed...UNRWA did knowlingly allow weapons factorys..terrorist traning camps...as well as all the nicities that go with that. That example has been repeated over and over by the UN..is that your example of a well run governemtn body??? They watch and support the terrorists...I have a trust issue with people like that."

You want to have a world body of a broadbased Iraqi government governing the world body previous known as the UN? You keep saying you don't like the UN, but you don't say what you wish would be there, instead of it. How would you like things run? Other than the UN, the only thing I can think of is, just things run by whoever has the biggest guns. And I know you'd rather have something like that going, rather than a democracy because the people with the biggest guns currently support your ideas, and....you further know, that if each country had an equal say - You'd never get your way, because you think radically. The world doesn't agree with most of your radical ideas. That's why you don't want a UN or world democratic body. But I myself, don't like things run by.....just the guy who happens to have the biggest guns.

"qax: Democracy is more likely to weed out extremist views, than just letting the guy on the block with the biggest guns do whatever they want. It's more likely for 1 country to go off the deep end, than the majority of civilizations and cultures in the world.

zoot: Please don't take this the wrong way...but this is what you sound like blah blah blah blah. Please don't imply tha Sodumb and a number of other non-democratic "nations" are not a threat to your freedom and mine. As Bush said...they have a similar belief..."if your not with us you against us" the difference is these people will blow you up...poision you...shoot you... etc."

I don't care about Saddam. He's not a threat to me, and neither are all those babies who will die in our bombing of them. And if you honestly think he is, I think you're a nutter that's been brainwashed really well.

 

[britishangel]

I have a point of view and will share it also:

First off 9/11 I lost my Uncle on the top floor of the WTC where he had worked his entire life. He was 65 and planning on retiring at the end of the year, "if only he had made it a couple more months." I remember where I was, and i remember waiting to find out if he was dead. It took months for us to get confirmation. But I want to say that not all families of 9/11 victims feel the way these damn protestors do. I feel that we are more than justified with our war in Iraq. War crime accusations? Maybe they do stand but a nation has the right to defend itself. Granted that the UN never explicitly said "go to war" in fact they pretty much begged us not to but the UN already passed the agreement forcing Iraq to disarm within a certain time frame. When this was not done they voted to extend the time frame. This did not happen and the documents that were drafted were never passed to again extend Iraq's deadline. Without the extent of the deadline officially the US is justified by the UN's agreed upon regulations within the submitted resolution 14-41 that should Iraq not disarm within the agreed upon time frame then action must be taken to disarm them. SO the time frame was up and someone had to do something, feeling threatened the US did what was in our nations best interest, we protected ourselves against a nation that was only begging for more time so that they may arrange what biological, chemical and mass weaponry they had in order to destroy other nations and spread they screwed up regime that they believe is ideal.
WAr protestors? I didn't see them complaining at all when Hitler was slaughtering innocent peoples attempting to make a perfect race. In effect Saddam is doing the same thing! For Christ sake he's slaughtering his own peoples to attain top notch chemical weapons. He too wants an ideal army, why is he so persistent on having such perfection of weaponry that he would slaughter his own people with biochemical weapons? Are we going to give him the chance to find out? Let me put it this way: If you had a handgun in your home and your 5 year old knew where it was would you leave them alone or move the gun? Same situation applies to Sadam, he knows where his weaponry is and he knows how much destruction they are capable of. Instead of handing over what we all know he had he denies any knowledge of them at all. So leaving him be would be just as bad as leaving that child with a handgun, Someone is going to get hurt and more than likely it's going to be us. Hell maybe he'd shoot himself in the foot too but would it be worth it for all of the destruction that he would cause us? I don't think so.
Survival of the fittest has always governed societies and it just so happens that we're the fittest nation, there's no matter of taking over the world...what would be the point? Anyone who's ever played Risk knows how damn hard it is to take over every nation, besides you can't keep hold of Asia and nobody even wants Greenland ( A little humor to lighten the situation.) So the point is that we're the fittest and we're taking the initiative that comes naturally to every being...SURVIVAL

 

[britishangel]

One more thing that baffles me?
When you did something wrong as a kid who had the type of parent who said "you have until the count of 3!"
So you got to three and if you didn't do what they asked you you got punished right? If your parents were good parents chances are they did.
Have you ever seen a parent who says that and then goes "1,2, 2 1/4, 2 1/2..." It doesn't work with the child, they know they can push you to count forever and they do because they are afraid to discipline their child.
This is what the UN was asking us to do. All those who didn't want us to discipline were saying "1, 2, 2 1/4, 2 1/2..." and not a damn thing was going to be done in fact they would still be counting now.

 

[izoot]

Qax..I will respond to one aspect you said:

You want to have a world body of a broadbased Iraqi government governing the world body previous known as the UN.

Please reread my statement....I said IRAQ should be governed by a broadbased moderate Iraqi government....not the UN. ' geezzz...pay attention

The UN needs a complete overhaul...I wish I had the answer to how that should be done. But I don't. In its present state its worthless.

As to Syria chairing the SECURITY COUNCIL....It is a rotating seat...but not among the whole UN...its of I believe 15. And the fact that a country that is on a OFFICIAL list of TERRORIST supporteers and sympathizers is even on the SECURITY council to begin with is a complete joke. But I can see from your esponses you obvious support terrorist factions as long as it doesn't affect you.

As to Quaddaffi chairing the HUMAN RIGHTS council...read alittle about him and you tell me how much he deserves that...anothe joke.

You can call me radical if you like...thats your privilage. But I am not all that radical. I just get sick you you left wing apoligists twisting facts for hostile and terrorist nations. Your type would prefer to wait it out til theres a 100k or so dead before reacting. I am not of the mind to do that.

I will not cave to the lobbying of terrorist nations and sympathizers....they MURDER innocent women and children in the name of religion, political and self serving interests and when they get responded too by countries defending themselve you pacifist cry about it....its easy to do when its not your friends family children countrymen dying. Learn to read past the first paragraph of articals and headlines....readd both sides of the story....

Saddam was given every opportunity to FULLY disarm...He did not...and if you reread what blix said...He did not say that sodumb was adequetely complying....but that they wanted to KEEP trying to get him to do so.

Sodumb random murders his own people and anyone that speaks against him....same as a number of these other peace loving countries in the region...you say its none of our business to interfere...well, I hope that isn't how people respond when its your friends and family that are being terrorized. Its the US's responsibility as THE super power to look out for the interests of itself and others. I don't hear you complain when the US is handing out money all over the world...the US IS the Largest donator in the world. If you dislike us that much please lobby for all these countries that so hurriedly take our money to turn it down, so as not to be seen as collaborating with a horrible country as the US.

I would love to see all you people protesting this war to go live in one of these countries and try speaking out the same way you do. You don't appreciate the freedom and saftey, you enjoy due to actions like this. Maybe if you folks spoke out about these attrocites commited by these countries you so hardely protect....there wouldn't need to be wars.

 

[Qax]

"Sodumb random murders his own people and anyone that speaks against him....same as a number of these other peace loving countries in the region...you say its none of our business to interfere...well, I hope that isn't how people respond when its your friends and family that are being terrorized. Its the US's responsibility as THE super power to look out for the interests of itself and others. I don't hear you complain when the US is handing out money all over the world...the US IS the Largest donator in the world. If you dislike us that much please lobby for all these countries that so hurriedly take our money to turn it down, so as not to be seen as collaborating with a horrible country as the US.

I would love to see all you people protesting this war to go live in one of these countries and try speaking out the same way you do. You don't appreciate the freedom and saftey, you enjoy due to actions like this. Maybe if you folks spoke out about these attrocites commited by these countries you so hardely protect....there wouldn't need to be wars."

Amnesty International has documented torteur in over 140 countries. Twenty Eight countries have known chemical or biological weaponry programs.

Do you want to take over....most of the world zoot? There are a lot of bad dictators out there. There are a lot with bad waepons. What's different about Iraq? Oil.

Iraq has done very bad stuff, and so has the United States - But the United States is the one on it's high horse claiming to be taking over countries, not based on their threat, but because on their bad behavior.

The US government is systimatically torteuring it's prisoners in Guantanimo Bay with sleep deprovation, and or other torteur. Sleep depivation for days or weeks on end is just as bad as any other torteur, just it looks more cosmetic. Also, a government medical examiner has put homicide on the death certificates of people who have died there - one apparently was beat on the legs with blunt force, until he had a heart attack.

But in the past, the US government has done a lot of bad stuff - and now you think we should go over there because another country is doing bad stuff. If another country had done this stuff, would you want to take them over?

*given Iraq chemical and biological weapons
*Aided and built up the army of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda
*in the 1960s and 1970s, the US goverment has admitted to flying over certain cities dropping chemicals on them, to see the results of certain extremly harmful chemicals on people
*is the only country in the world to have used a nuclear bomb (and on cities of civilizans)
*Rounded up all the Japanese people during WWII and put them in detainment camps
*Executes people
*Had participated in systamtic racism

This stuff, just in the past 50 years. Most of the bad stuff you say about Iraq, happened 15 years ago. Lets project this list I just gave you on another country, and I bet you'd want to take it over. Saddam, when he was doing some of the stuff you complained about, had our backing and we were the ones helping him execute the gassings and stuff....because he was useful to us then. We supported and helped Saddam do the worst stuff that he's accused of doing. So we're not the good force in the world that you'd like to believe.

Every imperalist nation in the history of the world, always believe that they were doing the right thing, or were being forced into taking over other lands. During the Roman Empire, Rome always believed it was protecting itself........and in doing so took over most of what was then the world. And absolute security is the perfect mask for us to all wear while on our conquest. Because you can never be absolutely secure. Everyone will always pose a threat to you. The odds of Iraq being able to actually attack us right now, I'd guess are about 1 in 100,000, in which case we'd level the entire country. So we're justifying taking over that country based on an extremly small thredical threat.

It used to be we just attacked countries that attacked us first. That isn't the case here. The next step would be, to just attack countries who wanted to attack us, and those who actually had the delivery systems ,and the capability to.....pre-emptive attack. That's not even the case here. The US' case isn't they've been attack and are defending themselves. It isn't that Iraq has the capabilities and wants to attack us even. Their case is, maybe, someday in the future, Iraq will have the delivery system or weaponry to attack us.

When you use the word maybe, anybody can seem like a threat. Maybe in a coup Musaraf in Pakistan will take ran out of there, and Radicals will run Pakistan. So we could make the case to take it over.

Maybe Argentina will get a nuke one day and attack the US.

Maybe Australia in 50 years from now, will really hate the US, get a nuke, and bomb us.

Maybe Canada will one day not like us, get a nuke, and bomb us.

Maybe Brazil will bomb us one day.

Maybe, maybe, maybe = justification for the imperal power to do whatever it wants.

And as for the rest of your arguments, again, Amnesty international has found there to be human rights abuses in over 140 countries in the world, and 28 countries have known chemical or biological weapons. What's different about Iraq? Oil.

I hope I did OK today, I'm hung over actually.

 

[Qax]

As for the US handing out so much money.....they don't actually.

Per capita, I think Norway hands out 15x as much as the US. Per dollar made in the country. Per dollar the US makes, they are very low on the list as far as how much it gives for humanitarian aid.

And they rarely give it just to be nice - when they do give aid packages, they do it because they get great influence over the country - giving money is another tool they use to run the entire world.

They told Mexico that they'd take away their aid if they didn't vote for us in the UN........and told turkey that we'd give him 15 billion+ if they let us bomb iraq using their land.

And like I said - They don't give nowhere near as much as you think. Most countries in the world give more per capita.

 

[WildCard]

Qax, you write well and have many good points of view backed up with what very well could be true facts.

Maybe you are right and the US is headed for downfall now that it's acting like old Rome. The US has been around for over 200 years, there hasn't been a democracy that has lasted this long, right? Maybe it's due to break down.

And I am sure you are right about how aid packages are usually tied to some form of obligation. The US even does it internally to states by threatening to withhold freeway repair grant money if states don't follow certain rules. So if they would do it internally, of course they are going to do it externally.

So like I said, you have great points in your really well put threads, but I have to ask 'what is your point'?

I feel that after this is all said and done, the world equation will be in a better way than it was before. A country the size of California was ruling people with a cruel and iron fist and now it won't be. A ruler that is somehow connected to a known terrorist that has declared war on our country is going to be a non-issue.

The US for years has helped use its resources to make the world a better one overall. With the US's help, WWI and WWII ended differently than it would have without it. Various other involvements worked out differently as well.

It's sad, regarding WWII, if the US had helped out Europe earlier, maybe Hitler would have been a much smaller challenge.

But hindsight is always 20/20.

Anyways, Qax, that's just my point of view.
-WC-

 

[Qax]

"I feel that after this is all said and done, the world equation will be in a better way than it was before. A country the size of California was ruling people with a cruel and iron fist and now it won't be. A ruler that is somehow connected to a known terrorist that has declared war on our country is going to be a non-issue."

What about if the US was gone? Iraq may or may not have terrorist ties - Al-Qaeda hates Iraq, and Iraq hates Al-Qaeda, but what Iraq, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban all had in common was that the United States built them all up......if Iraq is tied to terrorism, the United States definately is.....it's the country creating all the monsters out there, for our own gain, and then when they're no longer useful to us, we then rally around getting them.

zoot seems to think that the United States goes out in the world, making everything better. Well, I don't know about that. We support and prop up governments around that world that are son of bitches, but they're our son of bitches. You can be a ruthless dictator, and the US will help you, as long as you help the US' special interests. We will help you thwart attemps at democracy, and maybe even give you chemical weapons to use against people you don't like.

Saddam Hussein is a very bad guy. I will give you all that. However, I don't think that has ANYTHING to do with why the US military is going after his regime. Saddam was a WORSE guy back in the 80s when we were giving him chem/ bio weapons, and gassing people. We're going after this bad guy, not because he's bad, but for his oil - which makes us a bad guy also. I won't lose any sleep over Saddam's death, but I also won't be happy about Haloburtain making huge profits of all that oil.

 

[WildCard]

Why does everyone say we are after Iraq's oil? We'll get none of the oil. Now, you are theorizing but it makes no sense.

If anyone was protecting oil interests, it's France and Russia. They are the ones that will lose their premier oil contracts they had with Saddam.

As for Haloburtain and Cheney making money on the burning wells, well, you could buy their stock too if you wanted to, right? And I am betting that Cheney, even though he owns that stock, he is a blind trust owner in the management of those stocks. Many politicians do that.

It's not like Cheney lit up the wells. So bringing up Haloburtain isn't one of your best points you have mentioned.

-wC-

 

[bidawinner]

Originally posted by WildCard
Why does everyone say we are after Iraq's oil? We'll get none of the oil. Now, you are theorizing but it makes no sense.

If anyone was protecting oil interests, it's France and Russia. They are the ones that will lose their premier oil contracts they had with Saddam.

As for Haloburtain and Cheney making money on the burning wells, well, you could buy their stock too if you wanted to, right? And I am betting that Cheney, even though he owns that stock, he is a blind trust owner in the management of those stocks. Many politicians do that.

It's not like Cheney lit up the wells. So bringing up Haloburtain isn't one of your best points you have mentioned.

-wC-

:laugh: we'll get none of the oil:laugh: you're funny wildcard..

we will CONTROL the oil.. we will set up our Iraqi oil puppets..but We will make the decisions.. The scond largets reserves in the world....this control will make OPEC very nervous..

 

[WildCard]

Also, with you saying 'what if the US was gone' - some of the things you mentioned above were only done to counteract the power that USSR was flexing in the neighborhood. Remember, it was them that rolled into Afghanistan years ago, and the US contributed to the Mujahedeen (pardon the misspell).

So, the US isn't the root of all evil here. But we could probably play the 'chicken and the egg' game all day.

-WC-

 

[WildCard]

Originally posted by bidawinner


:laugh: we'll get none of the oil:laugh: you're funny wildcard..

we will CONTROL the oil.. we will set up our Iraqi oil puppets..but We will make the decisions.. The scond largets reserves in the world....this control will make OPEC very nervous..

Nah, never will happen. And we won't profit from it, I would guess that most of the profits will go to support Iraq's rebuild and social services.

-WC-

 

[Qax]

"As for Haloburtain and Cheney making money on the burning wells, well, you could buy their stock too if you wanted to, right? And I am betting that Cheney, even though he owns that stock, he is a blind trust owner in the management of those stocks. Many politicians do that."

He doesn't own any of their stock anymore. He sold it all off, right before it tanked. As for I can buy the stock too and make some money - I highly doubt the top guys will pass that onto the stock holders. Maybe 5 or 10 guys at the top will get all of the money benefitting from this conquest.......the top 5 or 10 guys at haloburtain.

You remember how these businesses work. The board of directors decides what gets passed down.......Remember Enron? The guys at the top will make a killing - so this war is really being fought for the interest of a few of bush and cheneys buddies....kind of sick when you think about it.

As far as them not getting the oil......HELLO. The US military will have total control over all of them. They can do absolutely anything they want, and we'll just have to take their word for, whatever they tell us they did.

Bush gave his reasons for this war, and they made absolutely not sense. The only thing that makes any sense, as far as why they're doing this, is oil. That's the ONLY thing that could possibly make sense.

 

[WildCard]

"oil. That's the ONLY thing that could possibly make sense."

The thing that makes more sense to me is that this is done for revenge for some connection Saddam had with Osama. I have no proof of this, but this is what I have on faith.

As for oil, we've got plenty of access to oil. Heck, Bush is going to try to open up Alaska for drilling. Oil comes from Middle East, Venezuela, others. Why would they do this to Saddam for oil, when Kuwait would probably be more than happy to produce more for us.

-WC-

 

[ShaunP]

Why do protests against war get violent?
Why are the biggest protests againsty war in democratic countries?
Why do men give up their lives for ungreatful people?
Why don't students have better things to do?
Why do most of us feel qualified to offer advice on something we really know nothing about? ....

Shaun

 

[WildCard]

No one here has said they are more qualified than anyone else to offer advice. I have stated on a few occasions that items Qax has brought up sounded like it could be right and I also pointed out that items that lead me to believe what I believe are based on a few items of faith.

I think this thread has been pretty informative.

-WC-

PS: I agree with you about the violent protests against war.

 

[bidawinner]

Originally posted by WildCard
"oil. That's the ONLY thing that could possibly make sense."

The thing that makes more sense to me is that this is done for revenge for some connection Saddam had with Osama. I have no proof of this, but this is what I have on faith.

As for oil, we've got plenty of access to oil. Heck, Bush is going to try to open up Alaska for drilling. Oil comes from Middle East, Venezuela, others. Why would they do this to Saddam for oil, when Kuwait would probably be more than happy to produce more for us.

-WC-

Bush is NOT going to get Alaska...he wont be in office long enough ..
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-03.htm

The last paragrpah is the most interesting..in that besides the envirormental aspect..the bottom line is even using the republicans numbers ..16billion barrels,..there is only a 2 year supply where they want to drill..!

 

[DomeBase]

.