Peace between France and the USA

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

And the Titanic hitting an iceberg and sinking wouldn't have been a mistake if GWB was at the helm, would it?
If GWB burned down the whitehouse smoking in bed, it wouldn't be a mistake.
If he accidentally mistook an elderly woman with a walker for Osama Bin Laden, and strangled her to death, he'd still not have made a mistake right?

Oh and most outrageous, if he ordered our troops to invade a country because they had WMDs, and then it turned out that they had absolutely NOTHING and he wasted billions and billions of our tax dollars, it's be all O.K. because GWB is never wrong, no matter how wrong he ever is!

What a funny president. He could drown twenty five orphan children under the impression that they were terrorists, and he'd still have made the right choice, no matter what logic, or common sense has to say about.

I think I must have been giving you to much credit in understanding the difference between supporting a cause and supporting the president. Its pretty clear you're either unable or unwilling to see the difference.

Let me try again. It doesn't matter who the president is/was. Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do.

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by Cbass

Just like some Americans! Actually, most Americans

Do I really need to comment on this?

[Pick]

Originally Posted by Cbass

I notice this attitude is very common in the right wing.

"France .... went to the UN about it, got the UN to side with them"

France went to the world, particularly to the powerful countries that make up the UN's permanant security council. The UN is an organization to represent the opinions and policies of it's member countries. The UN is not an entity unto itself, it's a group of representatives of almost every country in the world.

To say "the UN" means "the majority of the world". Bush tried to go to the UN, tried to convince the world that what he was saying was true, and nobody bought it. The UN(the world) was even willing to go to great lengths and considerable costs to try to prove what Bush claimed.

Sorry to chop up that post, justacruiser, but I felt it would better emphasize the sentiment.

The UN does not, however repersent the policies of the US in anyway, which is why we chose to not go through the UN and why we should withdraw our interests and funding from it. The UN is not an organization that has any interests. It is a puppet for 5(actually now 4) countries that have controil of the security council. The bottom line is that the other 4 countries in the security council would never justify the US going to war with anybody, especially a country they have interests in. It is an anti-US policy, not an anti-isolationist policy that the UN has now formed.

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Let me try again. It doesn't matter who the president is/was. Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do.

I don't care who made the choice, Jesus could've been president, and it's still have been a mistake. If you go into a country claiming they're a threat to us, and saying they have weapons of mass destruction, and then they don't that's a mistake. No ifs, ands, or buts about it!
If you say going to Iraq was the right thing to do, then I hope you are at least seeing it on the level that Sadaam was unjust dictator that needed to be gotten rid of, and not that Iraq was building weapons to destroy America with.

[Pick]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

If you say going to Iraq was the right thing to do, then I hope you are at least seeing it on the level that Sadaam was unjust dictator that needed to be gotten rid of, and not that Iraq was building weapons to destroy America with.

Think about the statement you just made. Saddam is an unjust and evil dictator. He has a history of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and has proven he is not afraid to use them. He has no regard for human life, especially that of Americans. So you have to reach a conclusion somewhere that he is a threat to Americans. He hates Americans more than any other group and certainly would not hesitate to use whatever he had on Americans.

Bush had the hard decision of weighing whether is was worth the risk of not talking care of Saddam to save American lives or leaving him be with many red flags going off that he might have WMD's. Do we think he had WMD's? Yes. Did he? Maybe not. We still don't know. But a few things were there:

1) the ability to produce WMD's
2) evidence that he had interest in making or obtaining WMD's
3) a previous history of noncompliance to international law
4) long range missiles that were covered by UN sanctions that we found the first week of the war
5) he was allowing Al-Quieda to operate and train within his country
6) a vulgar hatred for Americans
7) a desregard for human life


Yes. We should have gone to Iraq based simply on the reasons posted above. WMD's? Maybe. A real pain in the world's ass? Yes.

[justacruiser]

Originally Posted by Cbass

Just like some Americans! Actually, most Americans

And you're an anti american prick, just like some Canadians. Actually, most Canadians!

Your point of view is better somehow? Your point of view is worth just as much as any other here, nothing, except to piss anyone reading it off. Except those with your point of view that is.

[Cbass]

Originally Posted by justacruiser

And you're an anti american prick, just like some Canadians. Actually, most Canadians!

Because I don't agree with and support every action of the US, that makes me anti-American, eh? I'm beginning to see why you guys think the world is anti-American.

Before you go off labeling me an anti-American prick, you should know that for the last year I've been dating an American girl, and spending a good deal of time in Seattle with her. I'm certainly not anti-American, any more than a democrat who doesn't agree with the policies of the Bush administration is. So stuff it.

Originally Posted by justacruiser

Your point of view is better somehow? Your point of view is worth just as much as any other here, nothing, except to piss anyone reading it off. Except those with your point of view that is.

If you get pissed off from reading my point of view here, you're reading way too much into it. Politics are a game, the interpretation of an event or the words of another. I may disagree with what you say, but I'm not going to get worked up to the point where I'm angry, that's pointless. It won't achieve anything except raising my blood pressure.

It's important to try to understand the other sides point of view. I understand the right wing point of view, I just don't agree with it. I understand the left wing point of view, I don't particularly agree with it either. The only mainstream ideals that appeal to me are those of social democracies in Europe. Freedom to pursue whatever goals you'd like, and a social security net broad enough to help you achieve those goals. Taxes are somewhat higher, yes, but what's more important to you, money or lifestyle?

[Cbass]

Originally Posted by Pick

Think about the statement you just made. Saddam is an unjust and evil dictator. He has a history of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and has proven he is not afraid to use them. He has no regard for human life, especially that of Americans. So you have to reach a conclusion somewhere that he is a threat to Americans. He hates Americans more than any other group and certainly would not hesitate to use whatever he had on Americans.

1) Saddam is evil and unjust... Evil is a label, used to vilify an enemy. No one will seriously claim to be evil, and if they are, they are pathetic. Unjust? Defend that statement.

2) He also has a history of destroying those weapons under the watchful eye of UN inspectors, and allowing inspectors free run of Iraq to prove he has no more.

3) Hussein never announced any intentions of attacking America, he never had the capabilities, and he wouldn't want to anyways, at it would have given the west ample opportunity to invade. Hussein understood diplomacy, and he understood that the US couldn't garner enough support to attack him. That only changed when Bush took over.

Originally Posted by Pick

Bush had the hard decision of weighing whether is was worth the risk of not talking care of Saddam to save American lives or leaving him be with many red flags going off that he might have WMD's. Do we think he had WMD's? Yes. Did he? Maybe not. We still don't know. But a few things were there:

1) the ability to produce WMD's
2) evidence that he had interest in making or obtaining WMD's
3) a previous history of noncompliance to international law
4) long range missiles that were covered by UN sanctions that we found the first week of the war
5) he was allowing Al-Quieda to operate and train within his country
6) a vulgar hatred for Americans
7) a desregard for human life

I think it's safe to assume there are no WMDs in Iraq, or the US would have found them by now. Is it safe to say Bush lied? Of course, he had "rock solid proof", satellite photos, spies bringing back proof, etc. Turns out that was all bullshit, almost as if Bush had made up his mind to invade long ago, and was just trying to sway the public opinion to justify it. To the rest of world, it looked like Bush had made a bunch of bogus claims, couldn't back them up, and was becoming increasingly more desperate to justify what couldn't be justified.


1) Every country has the ability to build WMD's.

2) Refer to above statement.

3) If you notice, Iraq was complying with international law, and had been for quite a few years, at least according to the UN. Of course, according to the US, they were not.

4) Actually, those were short range missiles, with range of not more than 200kms. Long range missiles are referred to as ICBMs.

5) Another bogus claim. Not even Bush would say that. He said there were links, not government sanctioned Al Qaeda camps in Iraq. Al Qaeda hated Husseins regime, remember? Secular socialist government running a muslim country with a Shiite majority, remember?

6) A vulgar hatred. Hate, possibly yes, but that's not reason to attack him. It's only reasonable for someone to hate you after you've bombed them for a decade, destroying their power and water infrastructure.

7) Bush has demonstrated a disregard for human life as well, should we all invade the US? Sharon has as well, is Israel next on the hitlist?
Yes. We should have gone to Iraq based simply on the reasons posted above. WMD's? Maybe. A real pain in the world's ass? Yes.[/quote]

[Pick]

[quote=Cbass]

3) Hussein never announced any intentions of attacking America, he never had the capabilities, and he wouldn't want to anyways, at it would have given the west ample opportunity to invade. Hussein understood diplomacy, and he understood that the US couldn't garner enough support to attack him. That only changed when Bush took over.

[quote]

That's not a very intelligent statement. When did the 9/11 hijackers announce they were going to attack America? Before 9/11, Saddam was more of a threat to the US than Al-quieda. To deny that Saddam was a threat to the US is just ignorance. He had the capabalities. You know it. He had the will. There's not a shade of doubt in my mind he was a threat to the US.

[Stefanel1]

Just one point over the problem of knowing if the USA were right or not to atttack Iraq (the answer seem quite obvious TODAY, but was not so clear at the beginning of the war) :
Who are the USA to overpass the decisions of UNO ?!!!!! The war against Iraq was totally ILLEGAL.
And that's a very important point not to avoid speaking about this war.

[justacruiser]

Originally Posted by Cbass

Because I don't agree with and support every action of the US, that makes me anti-American, eh? I'm beginning to see why you guys think the world is anti-American.

Before you go off labeling me an anti-American prick, you should know that for the last year I've been dating an American girl, and spending a good deal of time in Seattle with her. I'm certainly not anti-American, any more than a democrat who doesn't agree with the policies of the Bush administration is. So stuff it.

She must be delirious. I mistakenly thought that Taranaki was just someone who didn't like America, mostly because every time he posted an anti-bush comment YOU would parrot him with some other comment that would help solidify those thoughts. Turns out it was you, not him who was one like that. As for 'labeling' people, take a look at what you said to piss me off.

Originally Posted by Cbass

If you get pissed off from reading my point of view here, you're reading way too much into it. Politics are a game, the interpretation of an event or the words of another. I may disagree with what you say, but I'm not going to get worked up to the point where I'm angry, that's pointless. It won't achieve anything except raising my blood pressure.

It's important to try to understand the other sides point of view. I understand the right wing point of view, I just don't agree with it. I understand the left wing point of view, I don't particularly agree with it either. The only mainstream ideals that appeal to me are those of social democracies in Europe. Freedom to pursue whatever goals you'd like, and a social security net broad enough to help you achieve those goals. Taxes are somewhat higher, yes, but what's more important to you, money or lifestyle?

I don't give a shit about your point of view, I hear liberal BS every day, that's not what I'm mad at. What I'm mad at is how you come off with not only 'I hate America' BS, but 'Just like some Americans! Actually, most Americans' comments as well, mixed in with your posts. You DATE an American, but you generalize them? Stuff it.

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by Stefanel1

Just one point over the problem of knowing if the USA were right or not to atttack Iraq (the answer seem quite obvious TODAY, but was not so clear at the beginning of the war) :
Who are the USA to overpass the decisions of UNO ?!!!!! The war against Iraq was totally ILLEGAL.
And that's a very important point not to avoid speaking about this war.

Illegal? The UN isn't a governing body (yet) . God forbid it would ever get that much power?

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by Stefanel1

Just one point over the problem of knowing if the USA were right or not to atttack Iraq (the answer seem quite obvious TODAY, but was not so clear at the beginning of the war) :
Who are the USA to overpass the decisions of UNO ?!!!!! The war against Iraq was totally ILLEGAL.
And that's a very important point not to avoid speaking about this war.

The UN is a useless pile of fuckups. The organization cannot fall into the dustbin of history fast enough.

There is nothing illegal about the war with Iraq. UN approval is neither needed or wanted. I am dissappointed that anyone in our government gives a shit about the UN.

[2strokebloke]

What do you have against the UN? The UN has done more good than it has bad - are you saying that they're useless because they disagreed with the U.S. over Iraq, and other things?

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

What do you have against the UN? The UN has done more good than it has bad - are you saying that they're useless because they disagreed with the U.S. over Iraq, and other things?

I've railed against the UN for twenty years. Nobody in our goverment should give them the time of day. The US should pull out of and stop funding the UN.

The UN has not done more good then bad. Not a single success story (and there are very few for an organization thats over fifty years old) couldn't have been done by countries working together of their own fruition and not have the administrative boneheads at the UN taking their cut.