*DAMN R6 Forum

Hello, jackal here!
I just wanted to know how you all think Bush is doing as of right now.  Heres what i think...in the months he has been in charge, North Korea hates us...we will go to war with Iraq...Terrorism activity has increased (though he has no control over that)...Iran is now evil and im sure he will try to start a war with them.  Also he favors the rich and has done nothing to help California's energy problem.   Hes a puppet, big companies who paid for his campain are telling him what to do.  All in all, hes a bad leader, just like his father.

Some advice...RUNNIN AMERICA ISNT LIKE OWNING A BASEBALL TEAM!  YOU CANT TAUNT OTHER COUNTRIES, FIGHT THEM, AND THEN EVERYTHING GOES BACK TO NORMAL.  THIS ISNT BASEBALL, WE AIRNT THE YANKEES AND KOREA AINT THE METS!

Well maybe thats too extreme there, just voicing my opinion.  I know wise men will come and post, and tell us whats really up..lol ;) ;D

Adios,
Jackal

I was too young to vote in the last election...but I would have voted for Nader damnit.  Next election I'll be in Canada working on getting citizenship and thus not giving a damn about voting in the US election.

I think he's been the normal Republican.

His domestic policy is for shit as far as the ecology goes.

He caters to the rich and big business.

His is much stronger on his forigh policy and international relations.  No kidding.  While Gore would have done a much better job on many domestic issues, he would have handled 9/11, Iraq and North Korea much worse the Bush has.  My opinion, but I'll argue it plenty if you don't agree.  But if you don't think it could have been handled worse, consider that we aren't in a war yet on the one side, and that on the other, we could have completely ignored it, and had many more terrorist attacks happen.  So, yes, it could be much much worse, even if you hate Bush.

So personally, I didn't vote for him, most likely wont vote for him next time, unless I can't find anyone better to vote for when the next elections come around.

Ok, I do think there are a few things in particular that Bush has done very poorly on in foreign affairs.  I think he has made some very ill-advised comments such as the axis of evil and played to his cowboy image on a number of occasions basically telling Europe that we don't give a fuck about them.  Him or his staff has basically supported the image of the US as an arrogant nation that is perhaps something to worry about as a risk to their own people through the stirring up of terrorism there.

This effect is what I think is his greatest negative legacy that it looks like he may leave in foreign affairs.  If/when the war happens more things may come to replace it, but I think the friction with our allies is the greatest.  Now I know many other countries are sticking with us.  But that doesn't mean the harm isn't felt there.  Tony Blair in the UK is under emmense criticism for supporting the US.  He could very well be beaten out by someone running in a less supportive campaign and then the UK would too be added to the list of weakened allies.  Same is true in Australia.  Even though we are getting support, the lack of popular support for the war in virtually every nation will have an influence on who leads these countries in the years to come and thus affect the relationships with the countries.

I wouldn't want to predict what will happen with Iraq and North Korea...I can't say Bush has done a splendid job...certainly there could be the chance that it works out and he comes out smelling like roses.  Of course there is an equal chance I think that he'll come out smelling like shit.

Yeah, Bush sure hasn't been all peaches and cream when it comes to foreign policy either. Gore would probably have been far to lax in response to 9/11. Bush just doesn't have the finesse his father had. It's a trade off really.

*sighs and thinks back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt*

Ah, now he really was a soldier and a statesman...

Just an opinion, but I bet Teddy would have nuked Iraq by now given his forign policy.  Or do we forget "speak softly but carry a big stick."

     Now THAT gave me a serious case of the heebie-jeebies. In all seriousness, that's a scary, scary idea.

Reading an editorial in Newsweek I have an expansion on the problem of how Bush and his adminstration have handled Iraq vocally.  Basically they have made such a strong ultimatum that unless things go perfectly our way we will attack.  While this is fine in providing pressure, it also leaves no room to back down.  If the US doesn't go through with it they make others think the US won't hold to its word, something that could be very dangerous.  Of course the solution here isn't to go to war so that doesn't happen, it would have been to not make such absolute statements and get stuck in this position.

Well, it's time Europe heard that I think. Seriously, from what I've seen Europe has done VERY little to try and alleviate any problems, plus they have been just as arrogant in terms of acting like they're above everyone else and their problems.

About Bush:
If I could have voted, I wouldn't have voted for him.. but I wouldn't have voted for Gore either. We have had shit for candidates in recent years.
Anyway, I think that managing the country in these times has to extremely tough, and I don't try and blame all our problems on him like most people. We were heading for recession (however I admit not one as bad as this), California really only has itself to blame for its energy problems, and nobody could have helped the terrorism thing. On the other hand, I think that he is mishandling North Korea and going about Iraq the wrong way in some aspects.

As a closing point, I think alot of you are blaming your troubles on the wrong person. We as a population need to learn to take responsibilty for things, and stop pretending like every little thing in your American lifestyle is the fault of one guy. The government doesn't dictate your lifestyle unless you let it.

I think Bush has been horrible for America, probably the most hated American president ever, he has really given the US a bad image. I think Gore could've done a great job on the domestic affairs bit, although I don't know enough to say whether he'd be good at foreign affairs.

Cookie, they have done little to alleviate problems? What has the US done to alleviate the problems?

If you're looking for someone to argue that Gore would have handled foreign affairs better than Bush has, you've found him. While Bush has made us a pariah in the court of international opinion, Gore had the support of virtually every major foreign country. This would have greatly aided Gore in his foreign policy, as they would have cooperated better with him. Bush gave the impression of not caring what other countries thought, and its an impression he still carries with him and carries out in our foreign policy today. While Bush's foreign policy is deeply rooted in militarism and nationalism, Gore's would have been much more balanced. As a moderate Democrat, Gore would have taken into account both the security of our country and weighed that against international opinion and the lives of innocent civilians before plunging into military action. With Bush, it doesn't stop and end with Iraq. He has vowed to preemptively strike any country his administration views as a danger to the US. This amorphous policy could really be interpreted to carry out war against most nations in the world. Gore could have fought the war on terrorism without starting unnecessary military conflict. Democrats are viewed as being soft on enemies, but they are willing to use military force as well. I think that in our nations 46th (?) presidency, Gore would have done a better job than Bush in every possible respect. Too bad I was too young to vote for him.

Ok Tasty, I'm going to chip away at you and Bondo with the same point.

The people that write for Bush should have lost their jobs long ago.  If he's writing his own stuff, he needs to not be allowed to anymore.  Because you are both right in the fact that his mouth has really hurt the USA in the "court of public opinion".

So, let us from this point forward know him as the Anti-Willie.  Because while Slick Willie could say lots of the right things, his actions didn't always match his words.

Now, let's remove our focus from the words that come out of his mouth (Bush's mouth), and look more upon the actions.

I hear many, many people here saying that Bush would go to war if he could already, and other themes on that track.  But, let's look at what he's actually done in the case of Iraq.  And let's do this with the volume on MUTE.

He's taken his case to the UN.

He's collected and presented evidence to the UN.

He's pushed the UN and allied nations to Force Iraq to conform to previous UN Resolutions.

Here's a real biggie, and goes right to Bondo's Newsweek article.  In the latest news from yesterday, it seems the US is going to propose a new resolution to the UN this week, not one asking for war or military action.  But one to set a deadline on when Iraq has to fully cooperate with the previous resolutions by.

I don't see bombs droping on Iraq.  I don't see bombs droping on North Korea.  I don't see the US walking away from treaties.

So, while there are many, many people on here that concentrate on what Bush says, and talk about how bloodthirsty he is, I think the phrase "actions speak louder then words" comes to mind too.  Yes, he's talking way too much smack, and it's pretty stupid in my opinion.  But his actions are pointing in a different direction.

I do not defend Bush either.  I don't like him at all.  But I don't think Gore would have done a better job with 9/11, Bin Laden, or Iraq.  It's not like I think Clinton did a decent job with Iraq at all (this mess should have been cleaned up long ago and not let to get in this condition).  

And Tasty, I don't care if they are Republican or Democrat.  

I also want to know what unnecessary military action we have been plunged into so far?  

All I see people focused on is the "impression" they get from "listening" to Bush.  Well, if I listen to Howard Stern, I think he's a complete asshole.  But if I look at the money he donates to charity, I'd think he was a saint.  Which is true?  Something in the middle no doubt.

As for someone saying that Bush was the most hated American President ever, please check the gallop polls and history books.  Because the American public hasn't rated him that low yet.  And if you are talking about from outside the US (be more specific next time), then I'll still point out a few names like Johnson, Ronnie ray-gun, Nixon, (I have 200 years of them to work with, and Bush hasn't come close to the top yet)

As for Gore.  I think he would have been an overall better president then Bush.  But I don't think his actions would have been better (my opinion is he would have talked much more, had much more sympathy from the rest of the world, and not stepped up security or attacked Bin-Laden, and we would have seen more terrorist attacks).  It's my opinion, and while I can tell you why I think it, I can't back a "what would have happened" anymore then you can prove it wrong.  Because it's just an opinion.  But Gore never has shown himself to be a strong leader (or great speaker for that matter).  He's more likeable then Bush, sure.  But would he have been as decisive as Bush in the days after 9/11?

One last thought.  Looking at the Patriot Act, I think Gore would have gone even farther with it in the reduction of liberties because of his track record from the old days.  If Tipper has any influence on him, you could bank on it (you all remember Tipper and the quest for censorship, right?  Some of you older people, help remind these guys of it).

Considering you think Bush is doing better than Gore would in foreign matters and Gore would do better in domestic matters.  Which president in hindsight would you want to have won the election knowing you would have to accept the flaws...Bush or Gore (feel free to add in other candidates as well because I'd choose Nader...I think he would do well with foreign policy as well).

If I was an American citizen I'd probably have voted Gore.

Bucc, I meant globally, and alright, I'll rephrase, one of the most hated American presidents ever.

At least they're trying.

Obviously our differing opinions on who would have handled 9/11 and foreign policy stem from the fact that our opinions differ on what the best way to handle those matters would have been. As far as taking the case to the UN and proposing a new plan that does not involve immediate military action, good for Bush. It means he is taking this in the right direction. As far as strongarming the UN and bullying countries that don't agree with us into supporting us, I think that this is the wrong thing to do. Right now we are starting an economic embargo on Germany to punish their chancellor for what Bush called "traitorous behavior". This is not just arrogant talk, this is arrogant action. We can't honestly expect everyone to agree with what we do, and alienating a major powerhouse like Germany is never a good idea.

The first action that comes to mind is Afghanistan. Now I'm not saying that nothing should have been done in response to 9/11, because the terrorist groups definetely need to be pursued and punished. And its good that we destroyed strongholds they may have had in Afghanistan. But the other effects of the war weren't so good. Bush claims that we liberated the people and that people were in the streets praising the US. But all we did was essentially replace one fundamentalist Islamic dictator that supported Al-Qaeda with another fundamentalist Islamic dictator that doesn't support Al-Qaeda. Are the values of the Northern Alliance really any different? And do the Afghan people want to be westernized? I would say that the answer to both of those questions is no. Bush vowed that after occupying their country that we would not abandon the Afghan people. Guess which country had literally $0.00 in aid allotted to them in the new budget? Also, whether or not that war actually deterred any terrorist attacks is up for argumentation. Obviously we didn't get Osama (as Bush promised he would). Were the terrorists actually deterred by us, or are they just waiting for the right moment to attack? Either could be true. I'm not entirely sure what the best method of attacking terrorism would have been, but I think the whole Afghanistan situation could have been handled much more prudently. Obviously they harbored terrorists there, but they harbor terrorists in numerous other countries and it just seems like the US government needed a scapegoat for 9/11.

Where did you find out about the German embargo.I have to see it to beleive it. When did it start? And to what degree?

Yeah, I hadn't heard that...sounds too stupid to be real...but then I remember this is Bush we are talking about.

I read about it at the eschaton weblog. Atrios linked to a story about it in the UK newspaper The Guardian. Here's a link to the story:

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,896573,00.html

Also, here's a link to the eschaton weblog if you guys are interested in reading some top class liberal commentary:

http://atrios.blogspot.com

Great, THAT is going to make the US popular.  They make an example to threaten Europe to play along.  My guess is it will just make countries more likely to stand against the US if they are going to try and blackmail Europe into fighting a war at the threat of lost economic activity.

There was a quote in my (very conservative) local paper from an American that was at one of the rallies in Europe saying she didn't think Americans really understood how much dislike there was for us.  Mind you this was probably an AP or similarly syndicated story.

In other news from today, the protests held here in Colorado Springs resulted in the police using tear gas and pepper spray on the crowd of 2-3k (largest protest ever in the city).  Rather glad I didn't go.

the link to the guardian didnt work for some reason, but i think all the tension we are seeing btw the two countries (ie. germany and the US) goes a lot deeper than the current iraq shouting match.

first of all germany has been closely tied to the US for the past 50 years and those ties have been sloley eroding, in part because of german commitments to the EU and simply because the cold war and fascism are no longer threats to germany so the US protection/occupation/tutelage system is kindof obsolete. the US also has other worries now. a lot of things, other than the different positions on iraq are affecting US-german relations. trade disputes are part of this.

now, as for german public opinion, it is instinctivly anti-war (for obvious reasons) and this has slanted the public debate during every crisis in the past ten years (bosnia, kosovo, gulf war etc.) towards non-intervention, even when else agreed.

as for the question about bush: ill have to say that his performance has been sad in pretty much every respect, but the current iraq thing is, imo, an exeption. the way he has handled it has been somewhat shitty, but his overall strategy has been good. keep in mind that he IS still trying to work through NATO and the UN and that a war has not started yet.

as for the gore vs. bush: i think its very unfair to assume that gore would have handled sept.11th badly. i great deal of our response also depended on bureaucrats and intelligence/law enforcement people, who are there regardless of whether the current administration is democrat or republican. i for one think that gore would have handled the crisis just as well and perhaps would have even been more diplomatic and less offensive to Europe than the cheney and his sock-puppet. who knows, maybe germany and france would support the war if gore was in charge. theres no use in speculating, i know, but this was a speulative topic.
and yes, i voted for gore b/c bush is a tard, cheney is evil and nader is a clown. gore isnt perfect but i prefer him of any of those guys......not much choice, really.

Only half the link became clickable so you are going to need to copy and paste.

Strongarming, another word I don't agree with.  Why is it that the USA is the only nation NOT allowed to apply political pressure on anyone?  It's always referred to as being a bully, or strongarming.


But it is an ok idea for them to alienate the USA?  So, if the USA decides it doesn't like another nation, it still has to do business with that nation?  That's as fucked up as saying it was ok when the Nipponese had much higher tarrifs on American Auto imports, and then complained when the USA was going to up the tarrifs here too.  

I don't think that France, Belgium or Germany are holding up their end of the NATO treaty right now.  Seems like our government doesn't think so either.  So instead of pulling out of NATO, and having it crumble like the Warsaw Pact did, the USA seemsto be exploring a different, standard, political tool.

Tell me what is wrong with this in theory?  Why is it that they can protest, and undermine, our position, but we can never do it?  Hell, a couple people even said it's wrong for us to have an embargo against Iraq!!  So, no matter what anyone in the world does, we should never voice our opinions (especially with our dollars)!!!

I cry BULLSHIT!

Now, I'm not saying we should have a trade embargo with Germany, or that we should move quickly.  I am saying that it doesn't matter what the USA does, some people seem to think that we should be lapdogs to the rest of the world.  (to overstate it like some of the ultra liberals here do).

I'm also going to point out how many German liberals have wanted our bases out for a long, long time.  

Bottom Line.  If we don't see Germany as supporting the USA, why should the USA support it?  



I'll just hit those key points real quick.

First, none of that equals "plunged" to me.

Second, like you said, US forces took out terrorist strongholds.

Thrid, don't forget HUGE stores of weapons.

Fourth, you say we just replace one leader with another, not much different, that isn't exactly an example of a negative effect.  Is it?  Saying we could have done better isn't the same as saying we did bad.

Fifth, just by eleminating that many weapons, we slowed down some terrorists, even if they weren't going to be used in America.  That's still good.

Sixth, Bush also said it may take many years in the promise, and he's not done yet, is he?

Seventh, you say that the US isn't going after other countries that harbor terrorists, but you also say we havn't proven it with other countries (like Iraq, for example).  Don't argue both sides of the issue.  As long as the US Government hasn't stopped it's hunt for terrorists, then you can't call anything a scapegoat.  Especially since everyone knows that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, and he was the prime target.  Where would you suggest the go after first then?

Things can always be done better, only a fool would think that this went perfect.  But, it could have been much worse, you have to admit that too.  

And don't argue that we aren't going after other countries in one post, and about why we shouldn't go after Iraq in another.  They are a bit conflicted, no?  I mean, do we have stronger evidence that other countries are involved then we do with Iraq?

Oh, another big word.  BLACKMAIL.  So again, by pulling out troops and bases (something that liberals have argued that we do in the past), we are blackmailing them.  Hmm.  

So, if I see that this store down the street is wrongfully refusing service to arab-americans, just being typical biggot assholes, I shouldn't be allowed to not shop there anymore.  Because they count on that money I spend there every week, and for me to not spend it there anymore would be blackmail.  

Do you need to get that new dictionary and look up blackmail now Bondo?


Yep, gotta love those liberals that say fighting for peace is wrong, then throw a brick at a cop car.  LOL.  The PEACEFUL demonstrations here went off without a hitch.  

You say the US should be able to pull out.  I agree, but it shouldn't be BECAUSE Germany disagrees on the war.  It should be because we have a valid reason to not have the army over there such as they don't need us there and we don't need us there.  To use this other reason delegitimizes the action.

As for the word blackmail...my definition is Extortion of money or something valuable from a person by threatening to expose a past criminal act or discreditable information.

Lets see, in a way the US is extorting something valuable from a country (rather than person specifically) for discreditable information (tarnishing image).  It isn't perfect but it is hardly misused in this context.

The problem with your analogy is that Germany hasn't really done anything wrong, it is withing their right to do what they've done.  Denying service based on race is discrimination and illegal in our country.

As for Germany not holding up their end of NATO...they don't have to provide military support just because someone asks for it.  It isn't like Turkey has been attacked.

Just a response to the article tasty posted... I don't think it's wrong to pull out that military materiel because frankly, Germany is in no need of protection what so ever, it's just old stuff left from the time before the Berlin wall fell. However, threatening to harm the German economy like that is not going to help the situation in any way at all. It will not make Germany comply to what the US wants and would probably just stir up more anti-Americanism, and not just in Germany, all over the world.
And just a theoretical question... what would happen if the rest of the world stopped trading with the US and started to not care about the US anymore? That's what will happen if they are going to do this to everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Two things. First off, I never said that I supported other nations applying political pressure. I also never said that the US isn't allowed to apply political pressure. I merely implied that I don't think that this particular situation begged the action of cutting economic ties with Germany. Germany is an important country to trade and our ties with it should not be taken lightly. Also, although our pulling out will hurt them more than it will hurt us, it certainly isn't going to help us economically. It never hurts to have powerful trading partners. I'll even approach this from a pro-war point of view. Sure, it would be nice to have the Germans with us on this, but we don't need them to accomplish our goals and we have plenty of other allies that will join us. And I don't think that its plausible to argue that this action will make the Germans cooperate with us. If anything it will further the gap that currently exists between us. So what are we accomplishing by this? I don't see much good to come of it.


Frankly, it is ok for them to alienate this US. We don't have to like them. They don't have to like us. But for the purposes of peace, diplomacy, and mutual economic benefit, why not keep your options open? Once again, I must point out that Germany is not an economic vessel of the US, but rather a valued trading partner. Trade is a two-way exchange. Domestic forces in Germany virtually prohibit its leaders from supporting this war. Its the economic right of any person or institution to choose who they do business with. I don't buy Starbucks coffee, Nike shoes, or anything else from egregious sweatshop offenders. But what the US does economically matters a lot more than any individual. The entire global economy depends on what the US does, to a far greater extent than any other country can effect it. I don't think this action is worth it on this one issue.

I say this because right now the US is trying to prove that Iraq harbors terrorists and use that as part of its justification for war (a relatively weak link to say the least) when we know for a fact that there are other countries that are supporting and harboring terrorists and have clear, undisputed links to prove it. The first country that comes to mind is Saudi Arabia. They support terrorism more strongly than any current country. Certainly they support it more than Iraq. Yet the US is not focused on the Saudis, nor really any other country with terrorist links stronger than Iraq (Pakistan, Libya, Egypt). With my post I merely wanted to point out that if we are going to go after countries that harbor terrorists that Iraq is not the only country nor is it the most prominent country. After all, Osama did refer to Saddam as "an infidel that should not be trusted".

So, them not needing us is a valid reason?  But them not supporting us isn't a valid reason?  I call bullshit Bondo.  Not supporting Turkey's request, amongst other things, sounds "valid" to me.  I mean, we don't NEED to have those bases there anymore.  Why should it hurting their economy be our problem?  Because we are supposed to support each other?  Or only support each other in the things YOU agree with?


Hmm.  What, exactly of value are we extorting?  Their support?  And we aren't looking to tarnish their image, we are talking about not supporting their economy with our bases anymore.  So, you are missing the expose part.  Maybe if you said we just weren't bribing them anymore it would fit.


And it's within our rights to boycott them, remove our bases, stop supporting their economy, and even place trade embargos.  Isn't it?  That's perfectly within our rights.  Isn't it?  

And you are right, my analogy could be better (although being a private shop, he can chose who he sells to or not, he just can't use that excuse for employment in this state).

So, to fix my analogy, the cocksucker of a shop owner down the street was mouthing off about how all the arab americans here should be rounded up and put in camps, or deported back to the middle east.  Those were some of the nicer things he said.  Now, I've been spending money in there for years lets say (not true, since I just moved here, but it works for the analogy), and he's come to count on me and my money.  Now, since I think he's being a cocksucker in this case, even though I have nothing else against him, I decide to boycott his store.  So I tell him I'm going to boycott him and take my business elsewhere if he keeps this attitude.  

Am I wrong?  Is it wrong for me to do it?  Even if I was a loyal customer for years and years, and this was our first major disagreement, I don't think I would be wrong.  I may be reacting a little to fast, but it's still within my rights.  

That fits better.


Yep, they don't.  They can be asses and not even honor Turkey's request to start planning.  They weren't asked to provide military support, they were asked to open talks about it.  Big fucking difference.

thanks, bondo. im kindof retarded on sundays it seems.

tasty, what article said that was that the US was closing down bases in germany now and calling it punishment for not supporting the iraq-agenda, but its not an "embargo". its a move by the pentagon, mcdonalds will still be allowed to do buisness there, dont worry. actually, i think the article played up the significance of the closing of these bases, which has been in the works for a while. german public opinion is also very against the presence of US troops there, so its a lot more convenient for the US to relocate their bases to new ally countries in eastern europe (i.e. poland, czech rep. and hungary). iraq is NOT the only factor affecting US german relations as i mentioned above.

also, i wouldnt dismiss the link between osama and saddam as quickly as you do. i know it sounds far fetched and a little too convenient, but saddam does have some pretty good terrorist credentials and admit to paying money to the familes of suicide bombers in israel, including islamic fundamentalists. so i wouldnt completely exclude the possibility of him giving discret support to alkaida, even if his and their ideologies conflict. the notion of my enemies enemy is my freind is more than a cliche in the middleeast. this is not to say that i am completely convinced myself, but i dont exclude the possibility.

Damn Tasty, you are really overstating one side while understating the other.

Ok, I started to go through your last post, but half way through, I decided to trash it and start over.

First, while I mentioned embargo's and talking with your wallet, that's not how far anything is being taken.  Let's look at the situation.

Germany (amongst others) blocked a request by a NATO member (Turkey) to start PLANNING FOR DEFENSE.  That is not moving troops.  That is not comitting anything but the time and knowledge.  Turkey has a concern that it may be attacked.  Agree with it or not, what harm would there be in talking about it and planning?  

So, the USA is looking at pulling bases out of Germany and putting them somewhere else.  Let's see, why would it make sense for us to do that?  It's not like Germany is the perfect place to have them, now that the cold war is over.  It's not like we owe Germany anything.  So, why should, as part of NATO, we continue to reward them economically (with the money they make from the bases)?  Why shouldn't we reward a nation that a) wants the bases there and b) supports our views more?

That's where we stand.

As for embargo's and boycotts, those are more extreme steps, and were also discussed with Iraq, so they may be getting confused.

Another thought, you talk about the US having much more of an impact on the world market.  Ok, but I'm not a commie.  I'm in business.  I have always learned that you take care of your best customer, you don't piss them off.  If you got a fat cat that accounts for most of your income, you cater to them.  You don't expect them to cater to you (with some few exceptions).  So, that would mean that they should have more reason to cater to us.  We don't force trade down their throats.  As a matter of fact, many nations have unfair trade practices with us.  Just because we can have a negative impact doesn't mean we should support peole we don't agree with.  To carry on with the Nike analogy, lets say that I bought enough from them that if I switched to Adidas, they would go under, thousands would be out of work.  Does that mean I should compromise my morals and still do business with them?  Ok, I say I will if they change, but they don't.  Is it wrong of me to leave, spend my money elsewhere and let them die?  No.  It's not.  If they can't support themselves without me, and they chose not to listen to me and work with me, then to hell with them.  Go ahead and scale that up.

Last note.  You say we know it for a fact.  That we know these other countries.  Where's the evidence?  Point some out, because I haven't seen them.  I've seen opinions on it, but if those counted, you don't need the proof with Iraq.  I know there was proof with Lybia in the 80's.  But that's 20 years old, I need something a little fresher.  One thing to keep in mind: I think all terrorist groups should be hunted down, from the Basq to the PLO.  But, I think that the government is (and has to) go after the ones that are a threat to America first.  I think that we should help the Russians with the terrorists (if they ask).  I think we should help all of them, because terrorism is a global problem.  We aren't going after the terrorists in South America yet either, but we should get to them (should, and I hope we do).  So, point out the facts that we know about other states harboring terrorists for me, I'd like to see them.

bucc and abe, i agree with you in my last post i overstated the importance of this move. that doesn't mean i'm changing my opinion, but yes i made it sound worse than it is.

and just for fun, cuz i hate nike:
Oh no, you mean the Laotian slave labor would be out of indentured servitude?   ;D

Actually I meant that the slave masters wouldn't be earning a penny of the backs of the Laotions anymore.  But close enough  :o

Well, I just waded through all that.

I think the biggest thing that jumps to mind is that the US is being extremely unilateralist.  Bucc, you've made a distinction between Bush's actions and his words, but I don't really see it.  He's talking "tough" with poor grammar and the like.  But the actions you cite bely (sp?) his intentions.

He may be talking with the UN, but take a look at how it's being done.  The real power in the UN is the Security Council, of which the US controls a major part of.  Yet we're asking for the support of the whole world, while simultaneously rejecting it.  I live in North Carolina, not far from about 5 major military bases.  For one, several local economies down here have been crippled lately.  Do you know why?  Because thousands of troops are leaving every day. . .

No matter what the UN says, we're prepped for a full-scale invasion on little more than a moment's notice.  So given that, I think any "diplomatic" action is posturing, an attempt to manufacture some sort of moral justification.  So given that situation, Germany and anywhere else should have every right to object if they feel threatened, etc.  Or if they simply feel the whole deal is wrong.  It's Bush and the US that is acting the cocksucker by reacting with an embargo.  Sure, you can shop anywhere, but you don't have to be an ass about it.

And the fact of the matter is, as the most powerful nation in the world, we theoretically can do everything we as a nation are doing.  Not to mention anything we damn well please.  But I find it galling that Bush seems so ready to use that power.  International politics isn't like a mountain. . .you don't conquer it just because it's there.  Ultimately, is the removal of the current Iraqi government paramount over the need for international stabillity and mutualism?

Two things to say about George Double-ya Bush:

As a Canadian I stand by the saying "BUSH IS A MORON!"

Also I would like to say, from my own point of view, "BURN BUSH AT THE STEAK!"

(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/ukliam2.gif)

Loudnotes,

I started another long post, but I'm killing it.

Let me just say that you may have waded through the whole thread, but you missed many key points.  I say this because you don't talk about them to even refute them.  

You also got a few things wrong (the US has threatened to take bases out of Germany, not an embargo, and it's because of the Turkey issue).  

 So, instead of repeating myself, I'll just say put your waders back on, and when you come out again, we can probably talk about it.  But to preview, I'll show you where I'd start:


I'm saying his actions (actually the US's actions) don't agree with his words.  I'm saying that from this, you can't say that his words are his intentions.  Yes, his actions don't match his words.  As for his intentions, I don't pretend to know them for sure.  I'm just pointing out that, if you look at the whole picture, and don't just listen to the sound bites, you don't get what you are claiming.

I mean, if Bush's intentions were really what people around here have said, the war would be over already.  We would have attacked long ago.  And I understand where people get the information from, but they are only looking at it from one angle.  Not the big picture.  

No bucc, I just skipped a lot of the side issues.  The big picture, as I see it, is fairly simple.

Bush says:  Death to Iraq, bombs, war, etc etc
Bush does:  HUGE military buildup in and around Iraq

Ok, so he's waiting to actually attack.  But it's not like he's going to just pull out of the desert if the UN doesn't want him to attack.  And I say "him" because I can't seem to get past the fact that he's an unelected president lacking a great deal of popular support.


Why would he be possibly be waiting?  I don't see any reason other than the potential to win some sort of farsical UN justification for unconcionable actions.

Loudnotes,
i think bush is talking tough, simply because this is the only way to get saddam to do anything. before he started beaing the war drum, saddam refused to even let the inspectors in. can you tell the difference between a military buildup to force iraq to comply and a "invasion force"? because i sure as hell cant, and saddam cant either. thats the whole point. i am not for war automatically, but i think that force is the only way to get him to comply. can u find just ONE example of saddam cooperating because of harsh words and criticism from the Security Council?

Where's the Bush does: presents evidence to the UN

Where's the: Iraq has actually been getting off it's ass and doint what it should have been doing all along because of this threat?

These aren't side issues.  

You don't like Bush, so what.  It doesn't make everything he does evil.  It doesn't mean that, for the right or wrong reasons, he is doing the right things (actions, not words).

Yes, he's talking tough.  Yes, he often talks stupid and out of his ass.  Yes he is preparing the military to enforce the UN resolutions.  And all of this has gotten Iraq to finally cave.  If they cave the rest of the way, war can still be avoided.  Or, do you think that Saddam just decided to start adhearing and cooperating out of the goodness of his heart?  That Bush's statements and actions had nothing to do with it??


Just get over it already.  He was elected, by our laws.  We have an electoral college, and it has always been known that a president could win the election without winning the popular vote.  We even talked about it way back at the Ford / Carter elections.  I'm sure it was discussed long before that.  It's not a secret.  In fact, it's been pointed out in every political class I've ever taken.  

I didn't vote for him.  I don't like him.  But he was elected, and we have to live with it.  Do something about changing election laws, I'm all for it.  But it doesn't change what is now history.  And history shows that Bush was elected.  

And I don't consider enforcing UN resolutions "unconcionable actions".  What's unconcionalbe about it?

I just have to make another off topic rant and clarify that the argument that Gore won the election has nothing to do with the fact that he won the popular vote. That merely has symbolic power. People who believe the election was stolen (such as myself) believe it is so because of conflicts of interest in Florida and on the Supreme Court, and because of mistakes made by those who ran the Florida election that caused Democratic votes to not be counted.

Tasty,

None of what you say means that Gore won either.  So that's a bad place to start.  

Even if I agreed that the Supreeme Court didn't act correctly (which I don't, and I wanted Gore to beat Bush as much as anyone), at most it would call for a new election.  

There were Republican votes not counted too, after all.  

What happened in Florida sucked.  No two ways about it.  But to base an argument that Gore actually won Florida out of the bullshit evidence (from both sides) has no leg to stand on.  I read about votes found after the fact.  I read about a bunch of them going for Bush too.  Who is to believe.  One thing is for sure, when Gore called it, Bush won the election.  

I personally think Bush won by the system.  I just think the system is bad.  I don't like that a candidate can win by less than 1% of the votes as is the case with Bush in Florida, gets all of the votes of that state.  That is telling the other 49% in this case that they have no say about it.  I think both sides should get their portion of the state's votes or that it should go by popular vote.

Popular vote is plain enough that I won't expand.  In my modified electoral college go here is basically how it goes.

Take Colorado and its 9 electoral votes.  Bush won about 60-40 over Gore here.  So if you split the votes based on that you get 5.4 and 3.6.  Now this is where the system gets a bit tricky but that is no real reason to say it doesn't work.  In my opinion the best way to break the decimals up is to say you round up the one who won the state so in this case Bush would get 6 and Gore would get 3 from Colorado.  That way all voters are at least somewhat considered.  Certainly it seems more fair than the current electoral college system.

I'll just stop there and point out that Bondo has agreed with me 100%.  Or that I've agreed with him 100% (depending on your point of view).  And some people said it could never happen.

 :D

Now any feedback on my suggested system?

     Bondo, have you ever read Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? In it, he outlines a system in which all voters would be represented by their candidate of choice. You should give it a read. Not to mention that it's one of his better books in general.

Haven't...once I get out of school I'm so dedicating time to reading a lot of the things I have wanted to and Heinlein's books are certainly there...I was reading Stranger in a Strange land but my silent reading teacher said it seemed inappropriate by the cover so I had to stop.  This was in Middle school mind you.  I think once I have a kid to take care of I may have time for reading if that makes any sense.  I am after all going to be more of the house husband type with my girlfriend being the breadwinner.

I think Saddam is scared shitless.  Wouldn't you be?  That's the only reason he's complying.  But who are we to demand that he abdicate?

I object to the entire use of force, enforcing a UN resolution or not.  That resolution hardly seems justified in my opinion anyway.  I'd like to hear more about why it was put into place. . .and especially why it's so important to enforce it all of a sudden.

That is, other than war talk of "Saddam is a threat to the free world, blah blah blah"  Simply having weapons doesn't mean you're going to use them, nor does simply being meglomaniacal.  One could call Bush meglomaniacal; he's shown it just as much as Hussein.  Also, using weapons on your own people is no crime when they're rebels, as is the case with the Kurds.  Should we deweaponize Russia because they've attacked Chechnyan rebels?

The main point about him having weapons, loud, is that at the end of the gulf war he agreed to disarm as one of the conditions of peace. It could be argued that, technically, a state of war should already exist between America and Iraq. He did violate the terms of the cease-fire. Doesn't that mean the cease fire is over?

On the other hand, I still don't really understand why now is so important. I support the use of force but wonder if Bush made a mistake in his timing. Yeah, eventually this situation had to be resolved, but why did he pick now as the time to do it? There is something to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie.

On that note, I just would like to forestall the upcoming comparison to Hitler.  Saddam Hussein is not Adolf Hitler, nor is he anywhere near the magnitude of Hitler, nor can he even be considered on parallel to Hitler in any respect.

Hitler had the full support of one of the world's most powerful countries, an industrial and technological power.  True, the rest of the world was lax in enforcing the peace terms of WWI, but that was only what enabled Germany to rise to prominence.  War did not ensue until after they continued to ignore the country until it became a dangerous opponent.

Hussein runs an impoverished nation with rampant dissent among the populace.  It sickens me when people cheapen the impact of Hitler by unthinking comparisons.

And no, the slaughter of Kurdish rebels is hardly equivalent to the annihilation of innocent Jewish civilians by the milllions.

If I did that, we wouldn't be in 100% agreement.

Well, with a modified electoral college, I have a little easier suggestion.  The number of votes in the electoral college are based directly on the number of congressmen.  Why not make voting for president one of their responsibilities.  Since the electoral college doesn't have to vote the way that the popular vote goes anyway, it's not much of a difference (except Congressman that don't listen to the people in this matter will find that they have shorter terms).  I like putting a face on the electoral college.

The way it's set up, the popular vote is really just a poll in most states.  BTW Bondo, if I'm not mistaken, there are two states that do split their votes according to percentage.  So if you let Congress vote (there is still a national popular poll, but it's called what it is), you'll have all states split.  Yes, you may just get some assholes that vote their party, but if they keep their seat in the next election, then their people support it more then not.

Otherwise, just go with the popular vote.  It has it's own dangers.  As much as people bitch about the last election, what was the turnout?  Less then half of registered voters?  And, how many people don't bother to register?  Yes, those same dangers carry over to using Congress too.  But the risk of voting fraud or mistaks *cough*Florida*cough* is greatly reduced if it's Congress (because it's easier to get many small elections right, and even if some are screwed, it's of lower impact).  Unless you think someone is going to fuck with the little buttons.

Did I also mention that if Congress did it, I think it should be a roll call vote?

Anyway, nothing is going to be perfect.  If you like representative, may as well make it simple and just have Congress vote.  If you don't like it, make it based just on the popular vote.  Both will always have problems.  But both are a little better then what we have now.


Heinlein has a way of cutting through the bullshit I really like.  

GOOD.  That is the whole idea.  I'm glad he is scared shitless, and I'm glad it is working and getting him off his ass.  What about that is hard to understand?

And what does the first point have to do with the second.  Don't connect them, that's a cheap political (and lawyer) trick.  Scaring him shitless to enforce the UN sanctions has nothing to do with anyone demanding that he abdicate.  

And who is actually demanding it?  I miss the latest soundbite on headline news?  I've heard lots of people here (those against the war, funny enough) ask why we didn't do that in '91, but haven't hear that in the news yet today.


Good for you.  Object all you want.  Doesn't mean much.  Not when you aren't giving any basis for the objection.  So, the question is the same as always.  WHY?


Don't take this the wrong way, but how old were you in '91?  How much of the Gulf War do you remember?  How much about what happened before it?

The resolutions in question was pretty much the peace agreement to end the war.  Saddam didn't want to lose power, so he proposed peace, and agreed to terms to end the war (like with any war).  He's not living up to those terms.  It's been over 10 years.

Why is it important now?  Because evidence (or rumor if you don't believe it) points to him not only not providing proof that he destroyed what he agreed to, but he was seeking more WMD's.  Some things that the inspectors have found have been shown to support this, some not, and most have been inconclusive.  It was also rumored that he was trying to purchase some nukes.  That hasn't been proven yet either.  But, the fact that he had begun to re-arm with prohibited weapons (which has been proven), and that he still hasn't shown that all that VX gas and Anthrax (and other bio/chem weapons they admitted to having) have all been destroyed.  A clear condition.  He was also blocking attempts to inspect and validate at every turn (until, as you put it, he got scared shitless).

This has all been covered Loud.


Did Russia use mustard gas on them?  Other WMD's?  And didn't Iraq use them against Iran too?  Oh, and doesn't Iraq have a history of agression?  Hasn't Saddam murdered those that have spoken out against him?  He was known as a murderer and thug before the Gulf War.  Has that changed somehow?  


Really?  And how was Hitler before WW2?  What did he do that compares what Saddam has done before that time?

All the examples I've drawn were of pre-WW2, not post.  So let's look at them:

Beg your pardon?  Suck what?  Go back and read your history books.  When Hitler came into power, he was the one that brought Germany back to being a world power, not the other way around.  When he came into power, the great depression was in full swing.  And it was harder on Germany then any other country.  It's economy and industry was in shambles.  Germany didn't make Hitler the power, Hitler organized them back into that power.  Germany was smoking hole in the ground when the seeds of WW2 were planted.


So they were lax, then they were lax some more?  They ignored the problem, then they ignored it some more?  

Where is the point there?  That we shouldn't be lax, or ignore?  I agree.  That's why the UN Resolutions need to be enforced.  

Or, are you being a typical monday morning quarterback and saying "oh, right there, that is the point where they should have stopped being lax".  Hard fact, if they had NEVER been lax, it (what we know as WW2) probably would never have happened.  WW2 still would have happened at some point, but with some different players and issues (just because the world is full of assholes, and there was still Japan).  But, it's easy to say that there was a point where they could have stopped it, but, without being there, you can't know if it was easy to see or not.  What you can do is learn from past mistakes.  And being lax in enforcement was the huge mistake.


Sounds much like post WW1 Germany to me.  Maybe you are the unthinking one here now Loudnotes?  Maybe your special place in hell for Hitler makes you think nobody could ever be as bad?  Well, I don't want anyone to be as bad, there have been enough evil bastards like him before Hitler, I'm all for stopping another one from being created.


Yeah, and there were no innocent Kurds.  No women and children in those villages.  Oh, wait, there was.  But they don't count as much I guess.  But if that's the case, why do we talk about the couple million jews, when so many more innocent Chinese were slaughtered in WW2?  Those few million don't compare in number.  

Oh, wait, IT'S ALL FUCKING SHIT!!  THEY ARE ALL EVIL!!  Loudnotes, there just comes a time when you got to say, they are evil.  It's not a contest of who is more evil.  We could argue for years over if Germany or Nippon was worse.  People have.  But is that really necessary?

The point of the analogy is Iraq looks much like post WW1 Germany right now.  They lost a war, and 10 years later, they are pushing past the limits.  

Oh, and did anyone mention that many of the "liberals" of the 1930's were saying that we should leave Germany alone and let them build their economy.  That it was no business of ours (and they continued to say it right up until Dec 7, 1941).  Until that day, America was very split on the war, it's the main reason we weren't actually in it until then.  

Now, with that same monday morning quarterbacking skill, can anyone say we should have stayed out?  Not gotten involved?

Hmm, well, since the Republicans control both house and senate, having Congress vote scares me.  Especially when Gore and Clinton have both won the popular vote showing that one could assume there are slightly more democrats than republicans.  So if I had to choose I'd say go with popular vote...just make sure you make a good system that is regulated not just within the state but nationally and better try to weed out fraud.

so some of you voted for Gore...and yet you play ghost recon and rouge spear....... :o        

        What the f*ck is wrong with you[/u]

Well, if they didn't vote their ticket, and not the position of their constituants, I would bet it is a short lived problem, wouldn't you?


There you go, lumping all us independents and "third party" people in as democrats, just because we voted for Gore.  You are drawing a conclusion about party affiliation that has nothing to do with the way anyone I know votes.  There are old people I've heard of that vote the ticket, but nobody I've ever met.  I don't associate with such idiots.

I could go either way on the issue of Congress or Popular Elections.  Both will have problems, but both are better then what we have now.

How is saying that because Democrats have won the popular vote three straight elections Democrats (liberal) leaning people are more prevalant so offensive to independants?  I never said all those people were registered democrats.  You overreact.

You used the fact that in the last three Presidential Elections Popular Vote to demonstrate that there were more Democrats then Republicans in America.  What I'm saying is that you can't connect those dots, because there are so many independents, and we (the independants) could have swung the vote.  I'm also saying that I'll bet plenty of registered Democrats voted for Bush, and plenty of registered Republicans voted for Gore (I know my dad did, so that's one, in Florida no less).

So, all the popular vote going to three Democrats in a row means is that American Voters like the last three Democratic Candidates better then the other options.  Doesn't make them Democrats, or Liberals.  Stop attaching titles to us.

And what I'm finding more offensive is that you are drawing lines of black and white where they don't exist.  The whole Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative is a big grey blob.  Step back in time a little, didn't you say that there's not much difference between the parties anymore, that they are all a little conservative, and that's one of the reasons you liked Nader?  Seems I remember that from discussions past.  

I'd put my vote in for the majority of the popular vote system over the congressional voting thing. I don't like representative democracy and our 80% of congress are partisan assholes. The electoral college is antiquated, and as you said faceless. At least they can be counted on to cast their votes as the people mandate. As far as other election reforms, I like instant runoff voting and publicly funded elections. Let's get the influence of money out of our electorate system??it has no effect other than corruption. And for those of you who think that a two party system is stagnant, instant runoff voting will help third party candidates become more prominent. As will publicly funded elections.

BTW, what do you guys think about a law making not voting in national elections illegal? I agree that voters who aren't knowledgable about the candidates are a liability, but there has to be some way around this. Also, I would contend that a vast majority of people who are currently regular voters don't aren't really knowledgable about the candidates anyway  :(.

Sigh. . .there we go with the post breakdowns, now I have to defend every statement you misinterpreted.

Post world war one, Germany was in ruins, yes.  And it stayed in ruins for 15 years until Hitler came to power in 1933.  Hitler then built up the nation, in part by rallying the populace around his anti-Semitism.  The rest of the world ignored this, and that was lax.

Hussein, however, governs an Iraq that has been in dire economic state for decades, since before the war.  His people do not support him, unlike the WW2 Germans, and he rules strictly.  But why should we now, after 10 years, object to his attempt to bring the nation some prominence again?

And despite the fact that I was 4 in 1991, how old were you during world war two?  I can read history just as well as you can, Buccaneer, even if I didn't experience it.  I seem to recall that American participation in the Gulf War was questionable to begin with.  That's why continuing repressment of Iraq by the US, not to mention our coming offensive to continue that repressment, seems to me uncalled for.

Why am I against force?  For one, I don't think peaceful options have been exhausted.  But also, I still don't see a great justification.  An eye for an eye isn't good enough, and I don't even see the prospect of that.  Are the lives lost in the potential invasion going to save lives?  Are you sure?

The fact is, no Jews rebelled, but the Kurdish people did.  Of course there are casualities, but it seems like one excessive attempt to paint Saddam as evil.  He still doesn't seem any worse to me than any of the other dictators in power at the moment.

Also, almost no one in the US wanted to be involved in a foreign war, for good reason.  It's not really our business.  However, if it's definitely going to save lives. . .if you could prove that to me. . .I'd be all for it.

And as for the Holocaust, I still think it's among the worst ever atrocities simply because of it's scale.  If you kill a million Chinese, but there are another 10 million to replace them, it's worse than if you kill the same million of someone else and almost completely exterminate their race.

That's not completely true.  They don't have to vote as the people mandate in some states (it's the way the laws are written).  Giving them the oppertunity to be complete assholse that remain faceless.  Hasn't happened that I know of, but I hate that it could.

But we agree, it sucks.


Love to.  Easier said then done though.  How do you make a system that publically funds any candidates, and keep frauds out of it?  What's to stop me from running, just to have a decent paying job for that time period?  If you don't let them take pay, then you are automatically handicapping anyone that isn't well off enough to devote himself (or herself) full time to the election.  That's just one problem off the top of my head.  Just picking who gets it and who doesn't will be monumentous.

I'd love to see it happen, I just await a good plan.


I think it's a bad idea for one reason.  Last Poli-Sci class I took showed an alarming statistic about how much voting is already done just on name recognition.  It's why those yard signs are still so popular.  I mean, it scared me.  If we force people to vote that don't want to, we'd just be increasing this problem.  I can see people voting "the answer is b" down the ticket (old multiple choice joke if you don't know it).  I can see lots of freaky shit if you force people to do something that they don't want to do.  

If you go back to Heinlein, he had some cool ideas about responsibility and voting.  About how people had to earn citizenship and the right to vote.  They had to be judged to appreciate the responsibility it carried.  He goes so far off the scale of left and right, that he's actually behind you.

Sigh. . . Guess someone needs a nap.  And please tell me what I misinterpreted?

Ok, just for you, just this once, no more quotes.  But it makes it harder to follow.

Are you implying that all of Germany supported Hitler?  Or that Hitler didn't rule strictly?  Hitler may not have executed as many as Stalin, but he did clean house, if you know what I'm saying.  And there were a couple failed coup attempts.  So, while I'll agree that it seems he was popular, I don't think he wasn't strict.

And what makes you say that Saddam's people don't support him?  He won the last election by a landslide, didn't he?  Ok, that was sarcasim.  But, I am not seeing proof, evidence, anything substantiated at all, that says his people don't support him.  Nothing any more solid then the reports of him trying to get his grubby little hands on nukes.  So correct me here if you would.  I don't see anything that proves that.

One other thing I'm not up on, so help me out here.  What economic trouble was Iraq in back in 1981?  

And, more to the point, is that the only difference between pre WW1 Germany and Iraq today?  Is that the best you can come up with?  Because there sure seem to be more things alike then not to me.  

Like I said, American participation in WW2 was questionable.  American participation in WW1 was questionable as well.  Why does that matter?  It is the nature of groups, especially in our nation and ones like it (where people are encouraged to voice opinions), to have voices on both sides of an issue.  Even after Dec 7, you could still find Americans against the war (most were smart enough not to be too loud about it on Dec 8th).  But you can still find examples of people being against the war even then.  Does that mean we should have stayed out?  Not in my opinion, what about yours?  (I ask again).  

Why does the fact that some people think it is wrong, make it wrong?  Some people will always think something is wrong.  It's the nature of our country.  So I don't find the fact that some Americans were against the Gulf War to have any real bearing on the current situation.  

BTW, you hang around lawyers too much, I can see.  Nice sneak in of the concept that we have been REPRESSING them.  That's a whole different argument.  One that I don't agree.

I haven't said all the peaceful options have been exhausted either, as I've pointed out many, many times.

Has anyone mentioned an eye for an eye here?  Anyone?  Where did that come from?

And my opinion is, if it comes to war, yes, it is worth it.  Yes, it is going to save lives.  Nobody can be sure, just as you can't be sure it wont.  But I can give my reasoning.  If Iraq is still hanging onto these WMD's in question, that they were supposed to destroy, to what end?  They've already shown that they aren't afraid to use them (or smart enough not to).  Why would they be holding on to them?  No good reason I can think of.  You?  Same argument if they are trying to build new ones.  And, I'll take it further.  It could (may, may not, no way to prove it) make another evil bastard out there think twice.  

But, most of all, I say we learn from our past mistakes.  We were lax with Germany, we should not be lax with Iraq.  All the reasons you have given about repressing Iraq sound like the reasons for ignoring Germany in the 30's.  I, for one, would rather be safe then sorry.

He is evil.  Like I said before, it's not a contest.  There is no Wink Martindale playing "who's the biggest bastard of all time"  If you want to vote that Hitler is the worst of evil, be my guest, We can start a new thread all about Hitler, Gingus, Atilla, Kubla (the list goes on, and is depressingly long).  That doesn't matter.  He is an evil, murdering bastard.  I've pointed out the murders of political rivals, etc.  I've pointed out his willingness to use biological and chemical weapons (since, well, he's done it).  How many current dictators can you say that about?  A few, maybe?  So what.  Does the fact that there are thousands of murders in our country right now mean that anyone of them is less evil?  Does the number mean anything?  

What makes you think he isn't evil?  Oh, didn't he try to shell the Jews in Isreal too, even though they were not involved?

There is no way to show you the future, all we can do is learn from our past.  So I'll ask you this.  Was there anyway to prove that we were going to save lives in WW2 before we got involved?  

We didn't even know about the concentration camps, and all those murdered Jews until we were knee deep in it.  Rumors aren't facts, after all.  And even the rumors didn't come close to the truth.

But, can you say that it wasn't a mistake to let Germany defy the treaty?  Answer me this, wouldn't we have been better off if the terms had been enforced in the 30's?  Wouldn't that have saved (in your opinion) even more lives then fighting WW2?

You can argue that Saddam isn't Hitler all you want.  Nothing is exactly the same.  Can you tell me, for a fact, that if we are lax, and let Iraq off the hook, there wont be more death?  Can you tell me for a fact, that if we are lax and let Saddam do what he wants, he wont turn out worse then Hitler?  Nope.  You can't.  Just like I couldn't.  

As for the rest.  It's silly.  You seem to value the lives of Jews over the lives of other innocents, ok, thats your opinion, we don't need to argue that in this thread either.  

So, I've heard you refute things like "eye for an eye",  that were never brought up.  And I've seen you point out a few small details on the differences between 1934 and 2003.  But I've also seen you claiming that we are repressing them without backing it up.  And saying just because there is a large, vocal opposition to the war (the first one no less) that's a great reason for it being wrong.  

So try it from my side (these are all points I brought up before).  What is a good reason for being lax?  Wouldn't it have been better if we weren't with Germany?  Should we have stayed out of WW2 because of the vocal opposition back then?  If not then, why now?  Shouldn't we learn from our history, our mistakes?  And are you even looking at the fact that he agreed to do things, and we are talking about enforcing this agreement?

Oh, and you've asked again, so I'll answer, again.  This started back up because of rumors (they still are, even though some facts point this way, not enough yet) pointed to him looking to purchase nukes and the tools to create them.  That's what made this come to the surface now.  These rumors would be like the rumors of the death camps the Germans had.  Just rumors, until proven otherwise.  Could be right or wrong.

One more example to parallel Germany of the 30's and Iraq.  Germany lied about it's weapons and their sizes and ranges.  Iraq has lied about the range of some of it's missiles.  Iraq also has (not rumor now, fact) these rocket engines for missiles in a warehouse that are 5 times more powerful then allowed.  New ones.  Inspectors found them a while ago.  Gee, nothing to worry about at all (as I hear those words echo back from the past).

I think the eye for an eye thing Loud was talking about was to kill Iraqis for the deaths they would cause Americans if they weren't killed.  So rather it is like cutting off someone's hand because they might steal.  I personally find that idea outrageous...yet it is in essance what is being done if we go to war now.

I'm on Loud's side that Saddam and Iraq is not similar to Hitler and Germany.  Germany had off and on been a strong power.  It was prior to WW1 certainly and so they had much more capability in gaining strength simply from having knowledge.

Iraq has never been relatively powerful since it was Babylon way back when.  They have never had the strength and innovation to dominate the world.  The Germans in WW2 basically had beaten all of Europe and when we joined then it became only slightly in favor of the allies.  They were extrodinarily strong.  Iraq isn't and really cannot get strong enough to even really push us.  Bush is claiming the war will take 1-2 weeks.

Another thing, we didn't have weapon inspectors in Germany looking around and keeping them from building up.  That is a huge difference.  Perhaps if we had that sort of thing back then, Hitler wouldn't have been able to come to power.  So I think having the inspectors is more then enough to keep Saddam from that if you choose to think he could even if left to his own devices.

actually bondo, saddam's big ambition is to become the "second coming" of Nasser and lead a huge pan-arab struggle against israel, making the Arab world proud and strong again. too bad the kuwaitis didnt buy it when he plundered them. also, his idol is stalin. JOSEF STALIN for christ's sake!!!! not nasser, not the babylonians, stalin. i think that tells you a bit about his ambitions and way of thinking, don't you?

as for the 1936 weapons inspections: if france and the uk hadnt been willing to use military action to enforce the rules, what would have stopped hitler from reaarming? in fact, when hitler decided to remilitarize the rhineland that year, those troops had orders to immediatly retreat without a fight if they encountered any resistance. who knows...maybe hitler would have been overthrown by a military coup or somthing and that whole terrible mess (ww2) could have been avoided. do you see any lessons in this?

Well, I for one don't think Israel belongs in the middle east to begin with so maybe Iraq and the other Arabs have a point there.  That was a UN blunder IMO.

Bondo, three things:
a) that's completely beside the point.......i was'nt asking you about your feelings about israel. i was merely making a point about saddams ambitions. he felt the same way about the iranians and the mullah revolution: use it to rally the Arabs and present himself of protector of the "Arab Nation". don't tell me Iran doesnt belong in the middle east. again, what do your feelings about the US or Israel change about the fact that saddam hussein is a megalomanic psycopath with an brutal police state at his disposal?

b) so where, in your opinion, does Israel belong, if not in the middle east? don't you think the issue is a little more complex than simply Arabs are right and Israel is wrong? for all the slack you are willing to cut saddam for his shit, don't you think you should at least look at both sides of the story? maybe you have, but i think not thouroughly. anyways, this is mostly off topic (then again what isnt?) so i'm not gonna get into this......

c) hmmmm, so the UN DOES in fact blunder at times, eh?.....interesting. in my opinion 47/48 was a triumph for the UN (eventhough there was a war) because it was able to compromise and acknowledge that the Arab-Israeli conflict was a struggle between two rights, not a right and a wrong. too bad it lacked the muscle to enforce its own resolutions back then (as it does now....thats why were goin to Iraq). you seem to be a keen advocate of compromise.......why not in this instance? the only true blunder of the UN is just that: it lacks the security council task force that was meant to enforce its resolutions if necessary and protect world peace, so the member states like the US, have to take on this responsibility. too bad all of the other permanent members are only thinking of how much THEY  would benefit from an attack Iraq and are blocking the US' efforts to use the UN to do it's job (i.e protect world peace and security). I hope next time France needs the approval of the SC to intervene in one of their former colonies, the US will veto their request. and this is my biggest problem with france's position: they are going against their interests by forcing the US to go to iraq unilaterally. ultimately, this will reduce the effectiveness of the SC and will end multilateralism the way we know it today (btw, france usually loves the UN because their on the SC and can make themselves feel important).

1. I never said Saddam wasn't an awful person, I agree that he has killed thousands of Iraqi citizens.  I think he should be removed (by Iraqi/Arabs not the US).

2.  I think Israel as a nation doesn't really belong.  I think the people who Israel was created for should have been allowed to move to Canada, US, Western Europe.  If creating a country was allowed, there is pleanty of open land in the US.  Surely we have land the size of Israel to spare.

Bondo.

i.) Do you know what happens to internal opposition in Iraq? They get beaten, raped, abducted, tortured or gassed with chemical weapons- and you are telling me that they should overthrow Saddam? Go look at some of this stuff on the internet. its pretty gruesome, but you don't seem to understand just how brutal and despotic this guy is. You are basically looking for an excuse to just wait until he dies, which is a little too convenient if you ask me. especially since his son, who is already in charge of all the intelligence services and saddam's henchman, is just waiting to take over the helm once papa croaks.

ii) So jews (you avoid using this word like it was slur) should just go to europe try to live amidst the people who just tryed to exterminate them? many went to or stayed in north america. others chose to fight and get their own country. that whole comment was somwhat ignorant ( as well as insensitive), bondo. also, by the same logic, we should just move all the Iraqis to the Yukon and take their oil........

1. Why can't Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc support a coup?  They have interest in removing him to keep the US from doing it.  I never said it had to be people within the country.

2.  In which way was my comments insensitive or ignorant?  Because I don't think Israel should be there?  I wasn't saying anything bad about Jews.  As for having them be in Europe where you claim they were being exterminated...I said WESTERN Europe.  They were being exterminated in Germany which right after WWII the east part was part of eastern europe and either way I meant France/England/Spain/Portugal type places.

Also, one thing to note, prior to Israel's creation it Palistine, under the colonial oversight of the UK.  The area was occupied by Arabs and then suddenly they were being bumped aside to make room for Jews.  While the Jewish people may have controlled the area two thousand years ago when the Romans occupied it, they were pushed out long ago (which is why the Crusades went to drive the Muslim Arabs out of Jeruselem and claim it for Christians).  The Arabs occupied from then on pretty much even if they had some people like the UK taking contol of the area.  So they had the most right to the land and forcing a Jewish state in there made little sense.

I completely disagree that it is in essance what would be "being" done.  No matter how you slice it, your analogy will be wrong if you make it out to be completely pre-emptive.  No matter how much you blame Bush or America, Iraq and Saddam will always share in the blame for what comes.


This means what exactly?  Because I don't follow where you are getting to.  

Germany had been a leading power in WW1, but was in complete ruins afterward.

Iraq had something like the third largest standing army in the world when it started the Gulf War.  

Not equal, but you are saying not similar either?  And none of the other things are familure?


Nor did Germany, as was proven.  Or did they win and I missed it?


First, It wasn't only slightly in favor of the allies.  Germany had allies as well (the Axis), and America fought on both fronts.  Remember, Germany fell before Japan.  It wasn't only slightly.  How many major engagements did Germany win after the US joined the war?  How many minor ones?

Second, it's not all about conventional threats anymore.  Saddam doesn't need the biggest army to be a threat (or wasn't the Taliban a threat?).  In a conventional war, Iraq doesn't stand much of a chance, I think most everyone will agree.  But, if he is ignored, it doesn't have to be a conventional war.  He could make war on his own terms, and not even have it point back to him.  That's one of the underlying issues.

Actually, there were inspectors.  They were given the boot and lied to as well.  It just wasn't UN inspectors and the USA had no involvement at all.

Go back and you can read reports about how when the Bismark was registered, she was "said" to be just under the tonnage allowed under the terms, but was actually over twice as big.  Same with tanks and planes.  Germany was still held to report and be audited (another word for inspection), but they lied and cheated, and all that bull.

Those same inspectors that were kicked out many times, and got little to no cooperation until the USA started talking tough and preparing for war?  

Face it, without the threat of enforcement, Iraq was doing whatever it wanted.  Now, with a looming threat of enforcement, they are heading in the right direction, but not all the way there yet.  

Abe, I think you've done a pretty good job covering Isreal, but I'll tag in for a quick second.


Personally, I think countries like Saudi Arabia have an interest in LETTING the US do it.  Afterwards, the US can move out, and there's less bad blood between neighbors.

Beyond that, Why is it Saudi Arabia's right anymore then the USA's?  Any argument I've heard against the USA doing it would apply to any country.  


Ok, to use one of Bondo's arguments against the other.  

Bondo, you said they should have been granted land here, in the USA.  But the UK did the same thing and you are against it.

I mean, for the past few thousands of years, Native Americans owned this land, and it was only in the last hundred that the USA has forced occupation of it.  So to give away land that it controls would be right or wrong?  In the case of the USA, it's right with you, in the case of Palistine, it's wrong.  Right.  

It doesn't matter where the jews formed their new nation at (except for maybe Antartica).  The livable world has all been spoken for, so to form a nation, room had to be made.  The jews chose, what they consider, their ancestoral home.

I look at it more this way, Isreal, like pretty much most nation states, went in and took over land it wanted.  They just did it more recently then most other nations.  Most places on this planet "belonged" to someone else at one time or another.  So why is Isreal's claim any better or worse then Canada, Mexico, the USA, the UK, Autrallia, Russia, Any of the former Roman Empire, or anyone else for that matter?  They took the land, they've held the land, and eventually, they'll probably lose the land.  And eventually I expect the USA to lose the land.  It's just a matter of when eventually comes.  It's not like peace and reason are the norms for human interaction, no matter what you want to believe.  Only two ways any nation will survive that little fact.  By being strong enough to survive or by the evolution of human nature.  

Thanks for the support bucc.....its much appreciated nowadays.

its kinda lonely to be pro-israel and pro-US lately, but i speak out for what i believe in. even if it means siding with a lot complete morons (theres enuff of them out there, take your pick) and disagreeing with ppl who have been your best freinds.......
btw, bucc. u asked what better claim israel has on that land than the USA, Canada or Germany has on theirs.......none really, except that israels goes back to the bible and 5000 years of human history.........but then again, that doesnt really matter much nowadays anyway (sarcasm)..........

Abe, I'll give you a reason the US and other places have more right to where they are than Israel does.  It is called globalism.  Prior to the 20th Century, the amount of global organization was very little.  Especially by WWII the world was mostly connected and thus was in a better position to govern international affairs and thus at the start of the 1900s is when land rights were set.  Certainly there have been offenses to this, but most have been undone such as the USSR breaking back up into the independant countries.  One offense to the original set that hasn't been fixed but was rather dileberately changed was Israel.

True, if they formed a country out of US land it would be not really different other than it not leading to endless war.  But I wasn't suggesting really that there be an Israel, I think the Jews should have just become members of another country...after all, they weren't Israelis prior to WWII, why should they have a right to be so after WWII.

I think if the US is going to denuclearize anyone, it should be Israel. Who knows what they will do if they ever do lose their land. Many of them are just as fundamentalist as their Muslim counterparts. It's never good for a small, desperate, war-stricken state to possess nuclear power. And that's precisely what Israel is.

Tasty, my hat is off to seeing a completely logical argument that I can't refute but for a small point.  That point being Isreal should be up at the front of the line, right after Iraq.  

But, it's not easy.  It's easy to make a case against Saddam, he's an asshole.  To disarm Isreal (just nukes) you'd have to make sure that everyone else in the area was also disarmed.  You can't let their enemies, which have shown plenty of aggression in the past to have them either.

More then anything, I think that there has to be a long plan of eleminating nukes period, that all countries would have to sign up to (and agree to inspections) for it to work.  Because, unless you get a case like with Iraq, where they pushed the limits too often, you'll always be facing the argument of "why can't we have them if America can".

So, I agree with what you said, but getting it done is a whole different matter.

Abe, you are most welcome.  Some people don't believe it, but I can completely disagree with you on abortion, and still agree with you on something else.  ;D

Bondo, so 50 years is all the difference it takes?  So, if Isreal survives another 50, would that make it better?  Don't forget, America was still fighting Indians in 1900.  Taking over the land.  It's gone on for thousands and thousands of years.  Isreal was just the last, big example.  Why draw the line right before them and not right after?  What about Ygoslovia? Or countries that were taken over before WW2 (like Ireland and Scottland)?  

There weren't Americans before 1776, why should there be after 1776?  The date isn't important.  

Oh, and I know many Jews that would argue that Isreal did exist before WW2, long before.  They'd say it was a nation, one that was scattered.  

Let me put it this way.  You are liberal.  With all the shit the USA put Native Americans through for so long, what if say, back in 1946, they decided that they were going to pull out one of the old treaties, that gave them, say, all of S. Dakota.  So they decided to annex it.  Make it the new CNAN (Confederation of Native American Nations).  Or Kansas, or North Carolina.  Or maybe not even a state, but just one of the large reservations they were kicked off of before.  You say you are a liberal, wouldn't that be the right and liberal thing?  Let them have that small amount back?  They didn't kick out all the American Citizens that live there, they let them go or stay.  But they have no rights as citizens, because they aren't CNAN citizens.  Would it be wrong, just because it was post WW2?  

No Bucc, Israel surviving 50 years wouldn't make them right in being there.  Did you even read what I said?  It didn't have anything to do with time, it had to do with the establishment of a global organization to mediate between countries.

As for you Native American thing...if I'm to push the analogy to Israel, then ok, we give Native Americans South Dakota as their nation.  Then they start moving into North Dakota as well and have settlements in North Dakota in violation of the UN order that established their nation in South Dakota.  So they are in violation of that UN mandate.  Now their being in North Dakota irritates the citizens of North Dakota along with their neighbors Montana, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wyoming.  They attack but the South Dakotan army is stronger so they push out and take over parts of those states until the UN forces them back, but still they remain in North Dakota as well.  So now there is hostility between South Dakota and the surrounding states.  But a lot of support is being given to South Dakota while not as much is given to the others.  So now they have a country that not only has taken land that used to be theirs with the agreement of the UN, they've also settled in other areas not given by the UN, but are also supported so that they can't take the land back.

What I'm trying to point out here is that Israel is hardly innocent here.  They've done plenty to become hated by their neighbors.

Bondo: I find it incredible that you actually think jews should have gone and moved to w. europe and n. america after the holocaust. Lets go through your list: France- half the country colaborated with the nazis. England- knew about the holocaust from very early on, yet refused to let jews into the UK or even 'Palestine'. Spain- fascists. Portugal-ditto......
the point im trying to make is that, after half of europe tried to murder you and the other half stood by, watched and gave them a hand from time to time, the last thing you wan't to do is live amongst them. some people take it as a sign that your not welcome when somone tries to murder your entire family and everyone just stand by and watches, occasionally lending a hand......you are saying jews should just assimilate and integrate themselves into western society, which, to my mind, is incomprehensible......hitler never made a distinction between "assimilated" and orthodox jews, so why would the next anti-semetic psychpath? And that was the lesson of the holocaust: unless jews have their OWN land and their OWN state, noone will look after their interests  or defend them. and right now, they are doing just that. You really don't understand the idea behind zionism bondo.......
Also, you're version of what happened in 47/48 is a bit one-sided. Israel actually accepted "globalism" and the UN by agreeing to the partition of mandatory palestine.....the arabs prefered to have it all and started a war to "drive the jews back into the sea". It was only as a result of that war that israel got more land than they were supposed to under the UN partition plan........but then again, that whole thing was a "blunder", eh? there seems to be a slight contradiction in your discourse: you place the highest importance in the UN as a meditator of territorial disputes, yet you condone the arabs rejection of what the UN says by brushing the partition plan off as a 'mistake'.
yes, israel has done some pretty nasty things in 50 yrs, but you make it sound like the arabs are complete victims. where is your objectivity, bondo? ask me if you want any examples of things the arab states and palestinians have done to make israelis hate them, ive got plenty.....do you know how israel gained control of the west bank and gaza in the first place???
and tasty, two words: nuclear deterrence. israels nuclear posture is purely defensive. saddam on the other hand, has a different purpose in mind. this is kind of like bondo's argument about iraq should have WMDs because the US has them.......your intentions for the nukes are what really matters. after all, the french have nuclear weapons too, but were not trying to disarm them. even for n. korea, despite their belligerent attitude, nukes are mostly there to deter an attack.
bucc, yes, jews are a nation and have been for the past 5000 yrs, except that for the past 2000 they havent had a state. but then again, according to bondo, its probably better they forget all that and just integrate. that would solve all the problems in the mideast (sarcasm).

Bondo, work harder on your analogy, before those CNAN's moved into North Dakota, they were attacked by North Dakota, along with other states.  After beating back attacks, they decided to occupy that land, as a buffer for the future.  

It's not like Isreal is the sole agressor there.