President Bush - about bush

dickbill · 2003-02-16 17:36:01

dickbill, I think you hit it right on target, for the most part.

Thanks Josh, of course I cannot be right on everything. But it's not difficult for me, french living in the US, to have a different point of view of my fellow american friends.
Now NATO get involved in Turkey's defence, big mistake IMO. You would like to trigger the war you wouldn't act differently. I am glad France is not involved in that decision. Really, what are the chance the aweakened Iraki's army could successfully invade Turkey now. In other time, because of the Kurdes problem, they would like it maybe, but not now. That would be a suicide attack. Irak has NO reason to invade Turkey. Invading Turkey is just what all the US is waiting for to go to war, this, or a terrorist attack in the US and BOOM. But maybe the Irakis are dumb after all, maybe they gonna attack Turkey.

clark · 2003-02-17 10:21:29

I just had a friend shipped to an undisclosed location in soutwest asia this weekend.

I feel bad becuase until this point, none of what has been going on has been very real to me. It has all been an abstract argument. A theory. A point of order. An ethical dilema. A discussion regarding the legality of international action, sanctioned or otherwise.

Yet through each argument, for, against, undecided, or ambivilent; He is going. Others are going. Many are already there.

Not all those who have gone will return.
Many who do, will never be the same.

Good men and women. Fine American citizens will die in another country, killing people for no other reason than they must in order to come home.

That's the reality. The people fighting will do so for the chance of coming home.

Not democracy. Not for a safer world. Not for our freedom. Just to come home.

And we put them there. Not our leaders, us. Joe American.

For those who support this war, is it worth the deaths of our military personel? Is it worth putting other human beings into the unenviable situation of having to kill other people?

Perhaps this action though will spare more lives. Perhaps it will prevent cities from being vaporized. Perhaps might will make right.

In the end though, I think we all will pay a far higher price for what we do now, than if we waited.

dickbill · 2003-02-17 11:37:42

Perhaps this action though will spare more lives. Perhaps it will prevent cities from being vaporized. Perhaps might will make right.
In the end though, I think we all will pay a far higher price for what we do now, than if we waited.

Sad reallity I agree.
For The USA, this war on terror, like it is called in the media, has costed a lot in lives and money and unfortunatly I am not sure we are safer now than before.
Probably many AlQuaida soldiers have been neutralized in Afganhistan, yes, but how many have been created in the mind of young muslims in the same laps of time ?

Ms Rice said yesterday that it is an emergency to go to war, the sooner the better, why's that ? all the Bush administration should think about how to get out the trap, how to recover from that bad situation and how to change the mind of the hurted people instead to focuse about the best way to go to war. It's gonna be easy to invade, sure, after that, we do we do ? duh...
I mean, you don't think that because the US give money to Spain or Turkey, the people love the US right ? Don't even think that a big US money compensation or help to a future invaded Irak will transform the minds.
For example, after Sept 11, the Saoudis offered 10 millions $ to New York for "reparation", which Gulliani refused politely because He was smart enough to recognize the money was stinking. Yop, money does not rule the world, ideas rule the world.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-17 16:58:54

And we put them there. Not our leaders, us. Joe American.

No we didn't. Our foolish leaders did. If our leaders had any sense about them. Any respect. They wouldn't be so quick to war. But no, in America it's politically correct to speak of war as if it's a good thing.

I'm sorry about your friend, though. I send out my best wishes to him. I've said in this thread that my brother is in Kuwait. This war thing has always been very real to me, I have a military family (me being one of the few people in my family who didn't inlist).

For now I am optimistic. Here's todays daily propaganda with regards to Bush: http://www.mediahorse.com/history.htm

clark · 2003-02-18 08:31:07

Josh, Americans get the government they deserve.

Our leaders, while arguably unrepresenative of the actual populace, still get elected. hey still need the votes. The breakdown in our democratic system is occuring at the voter level. Apathy in a nutshell.

If war isn't the decision of the populace, they can make that felt through their voting. But that hasn't happened.

We are allowing our leaders to do this, they are not doing this to us. That's my point.

dickbill · 2003-02-18 22:45:53

Hi

after I watched Fox Tv this morning, I think I'm not gonna be tough any more with CNN. Compared to Fox, CNN is a bunch of sissy communists, as they would also call the french, a "nation in decline".
Seems that evebody loose its temper.
I also saw the show on History Channel tonight about Saddam Hussein biography. He seems a serious psychopat, very well capable to use his own people as human shield. I wonder how the US troops gonna deal with that when they gonna attack because of course they gonna attack, want it or not.
The "after Irak" seems even more problematic. The cost to administrate Irak would be...half of the ISS. I also learned about an attempt to "neutralize" Saddam by a CIA agent, but the attempt failed.
I still stick to the conviction that a quick commando operation to hidjack Saddam Hussein would have been the best option, with no army invasion. Look at the recent russian operation with the hostages in the opera, it was almost a success given the situation. But of course the main ingredient for a successfull commando operation is the effect of surprise...I doubt we can beneficiate of this advantage right now.

dicktice · 2003-02-19 11:09:15

Yeah, but how will you know if you got the real Saddam?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-19 14:07:33

http://www.theonion.com/onion3906/point … asion.html

dickbill · 2003-02-19 16:32:17

Yeah, but how will you know if you got the real Saddam?

good question. I saw a software (History Channel maybe ?) able to compute saddam facial mensuration. From that it ressorts that the real saddam has never been seen in public for years ! all the public appearances are the result of his 19 sosies.
The answer is clear, we need a "Brutus", a spy close enough to saddam to be able to say it's him and to alert the commando operation to be ready. Some of his military staff tried an attentat in the past, it failed but this shows that Saddam has many close ennemies.
Maybe his own son (Brutus again) could, volontarly or not, indicate where saddam is. Follow the son, you get the father. That and some basic electronic spying, even if that guy never uses a phone personnaly, somebody has to do it for him.

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-20 12:10:38

Why is the US being quick to war? We've been playing this game with Iraq for 6 months now, and we've made our case to the UN 3 times (President Bush's speech, Colin Powell's Speech, Redrafting the resolution either later this week or Monday). The US has shown an incredible amount of restraint in this conflict. We could have invaded in the fall of last year and let the UN sit by and watch, but we did the right thing and tried to get world approval. Now that NATO and the UN want to stand by and not enforce the resolutions UNANIMOUSLY PASSED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL ITSELF, we have to go back to the UN and draft YET ANOTHER resolution to get the wussy French and Germans to support military action.

I do not fear for our deployed troops. They are the best trained, armed, and commanded fighting force in the history of the world. They love their job, and their mentality is on serving their nation, not fighting their way back to the homeland. We will win swiftly and decisively, and then they will return home.

And I did meet that woman, George. I told you the hippies were loonies :;):

soph · 2003-02-20 12:20:27

Caltech, you really have to stop ignoring that our administration didn't try a diplomatic solution. They simply used the UN as a platform to promote the war, not an avenue for a solution.

Hey, I support the war, but the party line is getting really, really old. Our government has been committed to going to war since November, and I haven't seen anything that makes me think they've wanted anything but war.

So do the means justify the end? To me, yes. But were the means justified? No.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-22 17:59:11

The Bush admin talked a talk they wouldn't walk. The admin talked about being tough on Iraq, but with political pressure, was forced to go to congress for such actions (even though Bush practically has a mandate, eg. the Patriot Act, which allows him to be God). After this point (or was it before?), Bush went to the UN for another resolution. This is where the admin made their error, though; having taken the issue back to the UN, previous resolutions became effectively invalid (one could try to invoke them now, but having reinvoked the UN, it would just be silly!).

So, the Bush admin is pretty much the weakest admin the US has had in a very long time. The whole world is laughing at us, really.

And George, I wouldn't say that ?all anti-war protestors know what they're talking about.? Neither would I say ?all pro-war protestors know what they're talking about.? Obviously you're going to find a person out of many who doesn't know or have good counter arguments (does this make the crux of the position any less valid, though- it would seem so, as this is what Cal laughably suggests).

Take the following site, for example: http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/ … otest.html

Here are some anwsers to the questions the guy stupidily asked these people (I say stupidily, because there was an obvious slant in his reasoning- just look at the main site-, and it's stupid to think that everyone is going to have a good retort- most people do things upon how they feel, not what they know or think- if I don't feel like war is an answer, my opinion should be valid, regardless).

General question: Why didn't the inspectors disarm Iraq during the time between '91 and '98?

Correct answer: The inspectors should not have walked out in '98, and should have instead themselves disarmed suspicious activities. The US should have provided a better situation for the inspectors to do their jobs, by increasing international pressure on Iraq, requiring perhaps a small number of ground forces. The reason the inspectors ?didn't disarm Iraq? is because we wouldn't let them. That simple.

General question: How long do you think the inspectors should be given in Iraq?

Correct answer: Until it is fully determined that Iraq is complying with the UN, and even after the fact, to maintain that compliance. If inspectors feel that they aren't able to do their job, and a small number of ground forces cannot insure that, then obviously something else will have to be done, ie, war. But so far such a situation has yet to present itself.

General question: Do you think the world community has lived up to its duties to deal with Saddam?

Correct answer: Obviously not. As long as various nations in the world have war economies, third world or rouge nations have the potential to have WMDs or other weapons which are potential UN violations that go beyond a nations right to protect itself. The world community made Saddam as powerful as he is. And the US took it as its responsibilty to insure that inspections were dealt with correctly. The USs irresonsible actions with regard to the '98 inspections are the cause of the current situation.

Follow up: Do you think that the world community would live up to its duties to deal with Saddam?

Correct answer: The world community is certainly living up to its duties to ?deal with Saddam.? But this isn't an issue about Saddam, the UN resolutions specifically refer to Iraqi non- compliance; not ?Saddam? in general. So far ?Iraqi non-compliance? is in the form of mostly hearsay, the concept that non-evidence is evidence. Because I can't prove to you that I drank a cup of tea, obviously I ?must have some tea left.? That's the mantra the Bush admin. is trying to spread. ?Because Saddam hasn't completely disclosed or accounted for WMD destruction (for whatever reason), he clearly still has WMDs.?

General pro-war comment: [We] have not yet disarmed Iraq.

Correct reply: The question of Iraq's disarmemant is in question, certainly, but so far the inspectors are satisfied. Assuming Iraq does have WMDs, their ablity is clearly below any real threat capacity. Otherwise the inspectors would certainly be able to find them. A better solution to this question is simple: give the inspectors more information, assuming you have any. Instead of sitting back like Powell did, when he ?suspected? WMD movement, alert the inspectors to such movement so that they may see what it is. The more the inspections go on, with international pressure, the higher the likelihood that those inspections will find nothing, because disarmement would occur under the table; indeed, the very thing is suggested by Powell's own evidence (the tape). As long as disarmement occurs peacefully, what is the issue?

General question: Why didn't we keep the oil fields after the original Gulf War?

Correct answer: Common misconception. Kuwait effectively annexed the Rumaila oil field, of which a majority was in Iraqi territory. The US had ample opportunity to suggest a more diplomatic solution (we pretend as if it's our way usually, don't we?), during the several times when Iraq wanted to sit down and discuss sharing the field with Kuwait (the field resided on both Iraqi and Kuwaiti territory). However, it's obvious the US saw the opportunity to have exclusive or mostly exclusive access to this field, this is why we were indifferent when Iraq said they were going to invade.

Another general followup: Why didn't we take all of Iraq in the first Gulf War?

General answer: Simply because we got what we needed. It may have been a bad political move to risk more lives in an attempted regime change. Bush Sr. needed to be reelected, and he knew his chances were slim to none if more of our boys came home dead.

Iraq itself possibly holds more oil than Saudi Arabia, so obviously controlling all of it in the future is an ideal situation for any first world government dependent on oil.

soph · 2003-02-22 18:35:18

Under 1441, US has justification for war. Period.

Why don't you address the fact that Chirac is creating a rift in the EU bigger than the rift between America and Europe?

Your post is full of untruths:

General question: Why didn't the inspectors disarm Iraq during the time between '91 and '98?
Correct answer: The inspectors should not have walked out in '98, and should have instead themselves disarmed suspicious activities. The US should have provided a better situation for the inspectors to do their jobs, by increasing international pressure on Iraq, requiring perhaps a small number of ground forces. The reason the inspectors ?didn't disarm Iraq? is because we wouldn't let them. That simple.

They were kicked out, buddy.

General question: How long do you think the inspectors should be given in Iraq?
Correct answer: Until it is fully determined that Iraq is complying with the UN, and even after the fact, to maintain that compliance. If inspectors feel that they aren't able to do their job, and a small number of ground forces cannot insure that, then obviously something else will have to be done, ie, war. But so far such a situation has yet to present itself.

Iraq is not complying. Blix has said he wants more cooperation at least 20 times. A minder and bugged everything so the Iraqis know where the inspections are going to take place is compliance? Let alone therir banned weapons. If we can find these, what else are they hiding?

Inspections won't end Saddam's reign of terror.

General question: Do you think the world community has lived up to its duties to deal with Saddam?
Correct answer: Obviously not. As long as various nations in the world have war economies, third world or rouge nations have the potential to have WMDs or other weapons which are potential UN violations that go beyond a nations right to protect itself. The world community made Saddam as powerful as he is. And the US took it as its responsibilty to insure that inspections were dealt with correctly. The USs irresonsible actions with regard to the '98 inspections are the cause of the current situation.

It's all big bad America's fault! No, no, don't blame the dictator who violated the resolutions, blame the country who tries to enforce them!

eneral pro-war comment: [We] have not yet disarmed Iraq.
Correct reply: The question of Iraq's disarmemant is in question, certainly, but so far the inspectors are satisfied. Assuming Iraq does have WMDs, their ablity is clearly below any real threat capacity. Otherwise the inspectors would certainly be able to find them. A better solution to this question is simple: give the inspectors more information, assuming you have any. Instead of sitting back like Powell did, when he ?suspected? WMD movement, alert the inspectors to such movement so that they may see what it is. The more the inspections go on, with international pressure, the higher the likelihood that those inspections will find nothing, because disarmement would occur under the table; indeed, the very thing is suggested by Powell's own evidence (the tape). As long as disarmement occurs peacefully, what is the issue?

It hasn't occurred peacefully, and how can we find their worst weapons when they aren't cooperating with inspections, and know exactly where we are going?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-22 19:11:06

They were kicked out, buddy.

False. President Clinton pulled them out due to Operation Desert Fox- it was determined that the inspectors lives would have been in danger had they stayed. A better solution would have been to simply tell Iraq that if it did not coorporate, the US would bring in a ground force so that the inspectors could do their job. With international support, he could have achieved this fairly easily, and at least justified a war if Iraq didn't then comply.

War is not the way to forced compliance. Weilding force, perhaps, but all out war is not.

Iraq is not complying. Blix has said he wants more cooperation at least 20 times. A minder and bugged everything so the Iraqis know where the inspections are going to take place is compliance? Let alone therir banned weapons. If we can find these, what else are they hiding?

I've said several times, indeed, in this very thread, that Iraqi non-compliance was merely the concept that non-evidence is evidence, and perhaps other trivial things which aren't enough to go to war over.

You took Powell's silly suggestion that the Iraqi's knew where inspections were taking place beforehand too seriously. If Powell gave a crap about helping inspectors, he would have made it so that the inspectors did do their duties by insuring security and so on. With Powell's failure to help the inspectors know where the supposed WMDs are, we really do have to take his FUD with a grain of salt.

Iraqi non-compliance is quite low on the scale of things, many things of which are mere heresay and simply stupid. I mean, my goodness, some rusted shells with mustard chemicals, how horrible and scary! We must certainly go to a very expensive war over that!

It's all big bad America's fault! No, no, don't blame the dictator who violated the resolutions, blame the country who tries to enforce them!

I'm not blaming the country who tries to enforce them. I blame the country who pretend that they will and doesn't do it at all!

It hasn't occurred peacefully, and how can we find their worst weapons when they aren't cooperating with inspections, and know exactly where we are going?

Oh, simple, really. Bring in a few ground forces, military police if you will, and have them surround the places to be inspected before inspections are to take place. Then tell the inspectors to come inspect. But, oh, no, with all this superduper cool spy equipment we have can't do that for some reason. It's... just... impossible...

Heheh, the real reason is that we don't want to risk going after what we ?think? is WMD, only to find out that it's dipers or something. I mean, how would we look then? Don't tell me we couldn't do it. That's just laughable. We're the most sophisticaed country in the world when it comes to this sort of thing!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-22 19:14:10

Oh, and I don't see any rift in the EU, to me it seems as if Germany and Fance, and Belgium, and so on are all friendly. Surely you saw all those protests where the people stood united? The real rift in the EU, is on behalf of the UK, to be quite honest.

Feel free to correct me, though. About this ?rift.? Oh, and if the US had justification for under 1441, then why is the US trying to appeal to the Security Council, and so on? Guess they don't think it's that justified at all, huh?

Damn that UN!

soph · 2003-02-22 21:01:30

Open your eyes Josh! You've got yourself as convinced as Cal!

Don't take it from me:

Chirac wants himself to be King

More anger at Chirac

More division amongst the EU

Chirac Tries to Bully Opposition

EU wants Iraq to Disarm

No European rift? That's just what I found from the New York Times! Sure, the Europeans don't like Bush-but at least they see that Chirac is doing exactly what he accuses Bush of doing!

He's trying to bully Europe around- he has called for a massive European army commanded by no other than France, and him. He wants to be the ruler of the EU. It ain't working-they hate him.

soph · 2003-02-22 21:04:31

The US wants another resolution because the UN is rescinding on the resolutions they made.

Without America, the UN has no power to enforce its resolutions, and they try to screw America around while France tries to become an American rival.

The UN is a paper tiger. France and Germany are more concerned about pissing America off than enforcing their own resolutions.

1441 is sufficient justification. Bush hasn't tried a diplomatic solution-but we have the justification-we are doing the UN a favor.

Belgium has given in the the bully of Europe-and their people are angered. Against the NATO charter, they vetoed defense of Turkey. I guess treaties mean nothing to Europeans either!

How can the UN be a force worth caring about if the EU can't even act as a unified political entity? There is no unity-it's just power jousting among a few separated blocs.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-22 22:12:41

How is the UN recinding? The inspectors are doing their job.

The US wants another resolution that says, ?We want to blow Iraq up after a certain time period.? Resolution 1441 doesn't give a certain time period in which ?compliance? must be made, and indeed, doesn't even define what actions are to be taken if non-compliance occurs. Resolution 1441 just says, ?Hey, let's get on the inspection bandwagon, shall we??

Indeed, this resolution says nothing about going to war if a material breech is found. One of the most interesting statements being (from Part 7):

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof

Wow! So if WMDs are found, the UNMOVIC and IAEA can just destroy them and move on. Perhaps this is why the US doesn't want to help them find the supposed WMDs; destruction would ensue and UNMOVIC will go about its business, averting war alltogether! (Obviously it won't happen that way if the discovery is huge, like say a biological chemical factory, due to parts 11-13.)

Everyone is saying here that Iraq is not complying. Well, technically, the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC decides whether or not someone is complying (not some stupid ass reporter on FOX who thinks that rusted shells are a real threat). At the momment, Blix is satisfied with Iraqi compliance (mostly due to the fact, as I've said before, things like rusted shells with mustard chemicals, rockets which go just a wee bit further than you want, and lacking disclosure isn't a big deal, and are all trivial things), and so should everyone.

It's good that France is pushing some weight around. The US doesn't need to be the only world power, and the world would be better off without it. The links you showed me with regards to France are interesting, indeed. Having read them, there does seem to be evidence that the EU, or at least, the nations in Euorpe (given that many aren't in the Euorpean Union, I can't count them) are against a diplomatic solution, but I would have to see each nations response before making such a determination. I mean, you linked op eds, for the most part.

And the justification for the veto for Turkey defense is quite rational. Not vetoing it would be the same as saying that it was even necessary. The reason it was vetoed is because those in NATO think a peaceful solution is still possible.

Interestingly, it seems Turkey wants to annex Iraqi Kurdistan for themselves. Do we want that?

soph · 2003-02-22 22:19:02

So its okay for France to be a bully and tell other nations to shut up, but we're wrong for asking the UN to live up to its word?

Oh, and NATO is required to give Turkey aid under these conditions, the political jostling shows that anti-Americanism is stronger than anti-warism.

Josh, sorry bout those op eds- I have a membership which doesn't carry through links.

The inspectors are doing their job? Please. They are bugged and followed everywhere. I already said this, Josh.

These nations are in the EU except for a little paperwork. Even the megalomaniac Chirac can't stop them. He has delusions of power, yet you support him because he is anti-Bush. The rift in the EU is growing, as well as the rift in the UN. Hell, Bush should thank Chirac, they hate him more than they hate us!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-22 22:39:16

Show me where the UN isn't living up to its word, soph.

And NATO isn't required to give aid, as far as I know. They're only required to give aid under conditions of war. We are not at war!

I don't support Chirac because he is anti-Bush (I am surprised that there is anyone in EU who is ?pro-Bush?), I support him, and France, and Germany and Belgium, for that matter, because I think they're doing the right thing. I think that any justification for war has yet to be made, and I think that diplomacy is the most rational route to take.

If the inspectors are bugged, then those who have security power need to make it so that they aren't bugged. My god, this really isn't an issue. I'm sure inspectors are followed everywhere. If I were Iraq, and I was suspicious, I would make certain that some of my own people foresaw the investigations. Think about it, if the police wanted to rummage through your house, wouldn't you want to be there? My oh my, the inspectors aren't doing their job. Someone better tell Blix that he's delusional then.

soph · 2003-02-23 08:54:15

Blix isn't delusional! He has said it many times: the Iraqis aren't cooperating.

If you bug the police on the way to your home so you can move evidence, you're committing yet another crime, Josh.

Who is going to enforce it? More inspectors? No, the non-compliance shows that inspections are ineffective. Action by the UN, who has become a paper tiger, is needed to enforce them. It isn't happening. Nothing will change if inspections go on forever.

The diplomacy route would have been nice a year ago. It's too late now, and we have sufficient justification for war. Chirac is a power-hungry guy who wants France to control Europe. It's almost like Germany before WW2 (I'm not comparing Chirac to Hitler-I'm talking about the expansion of power and influence).

Chirac wants the world to follow France. It's funny how when America wants the world to follow it, you have such a problem with it, yet Chirac is trying to form a massive European army, with France at the head, trying to bully junior EU countries, telling them to "shut up," and trying to shut off anyone else who opposes him, you support him.

Double standard, Josh.

Chirac is creating a rift, another NYT article

NATO is required to defend a member country who requests aid and is under threat of invasion. Given Saddam's history, this is a valid claim, and France and co. are just trying to take jabs at America.

soph · 2003-02-23 09:08:42

Belgium uses NATO for petty politics

These articles are all within the last month, from a single news source.

Belgium, France, and Germany are not doing the right thing. They are dividing Europe because these leaders want to get reelected, and want power.

dicktice · 2003-02-23 12:13:49

You who recommend giving up and "going to war"... would you please--for the sake of clarity--describe precisely your ideas in detail of what you think should take place in Iraq, let's say, during that first week...?

soph · 2003-02-23 12:18:36

Air strikes to take out strategic military sites.

Commando raids to take out personnel.

Military siege of Baghdad, no invasion of the city-just special ops manuvers in the city.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 14:45:27

Blix isn't delusional! He has said it many times: the Iraqis aren't cooperating.

Yes, but his recommendation is to continue inspections! It's clearly a delusional fool since he doesn't see it the way you or other news outlets want to see it! I mean, clearly the rusted mustard shells are a huge threat to everyone!

If you bug the police on the way to your home so you can move evidence, you're committing yet another crime, Josh.

If the police know they're being bugged, they need to do something about it instead of sitting around like stupid morons who don't know how to do their job. And anyway, I can go to certain lengths to know exactly what they're doing in my house. I can request to be there as they search, so that I can insure that my valuables aren't broken, and so on. This is really a no-brainer, and is probably the weakest part of your argument.

Who is going to enforce it? More inspectors? No, the non-compliance shows that inspections are ineffective.

That's bullcrap. The non-compliance is of very very trivial things. The inspectors are given mostly unfettered access to places. Locked doors and so on are just silly things that ought to be overcome, obviously, but they are hardly evidence that inspecions are ineffetive. Case in point, within the next few days Iraq will have to decide to destroy weapons they would need to use if they thought the US would invade. I predict that they will and you and your silly argument that the inspections are ineffective will be proven wrong. (And of course, after this point, war won't happen at all, and the US and the UK will have to change their positions drastically.)

Action by the UN, who has become a paper tiger, is needed to enforce them. It isn't happening.

Um, how is it not being enforced? Hundreds of inspectors are on the ground. They are given unfettered asccess to everywhere (with a few exceptions). Progress is happening in the forms of private interviews (wow, a private interview- where I'm certain asylum was offered and everything! that's huge!). These magical ?bugs? you invoke every time you make an argument against inspections are not a realistic impeedment.

Nothing will change if inspections go on forever.

Well, when their weapons are destroyed, you'll see that things will change.

Chirac is a power-hungry guy who wants France to control Europe.

Who cares? ?Bush is a power-hungry guy who wants the US to control everyone.? And though I'm being somewhat sarcastic with that last statement, it's actually quite true. Dominique de Villepin was very angry at Powell after the Security Council meeting, for trying to split the EU (yes, the inverse argument can be said, and quite well, even; it wasn't France who went to the Euorpean nations first, it was the US, pleading for support on Iraq!).

Chirac wants the world to follow France.

Actually, Chirac wants the world to listen to the UN. This means, obviously, that Chirac wants the world to listen to Germany and China, and the elected states just as well, when it comes to Security Council matters. See, before, the US would have complete veto power, because everyone on the Security Council would allie with us and all would be well (let's not forget the under the table agreements). Now the US does not, and that is an odd thing, indeed. The world now has to listen to each side of the argument, rather than simply agree with what the US feels is right.

It's funny how when America wants the world to follow it, you have such a problem with it, yet Chirac is trying to form a massive European army, with France at the head, trying to bully junior EU countries, telling them to "shut up," and trying to shut off anyone else who opposes him, you support him.

Well, you neglected to outline how America wants the world to follow it (ie, by going to unnecessary wars, etc). Your bias shows through greatly. I could just as easily make the inverse argument. The point isn't that I want the world to follow France, the point is that I don't want one world government controlling everyone. I want more than one, two or perferrably three! It's time the US stop being the policeman to the world, and sit back as a second world power to the EU.

And personally, I find things like, ?[they] missed a great opportunity to shut up,? non-offensive at all. Considering that it's true. Had they not said anything, we wouldn't even be questioning it. Someone has to take a leadership position in the EU. If it's France, so be it. And if it takes in your face, obvious, statements like that, oh well. Get over it.

One should note that France never said they wouldn't go to war with Iraq, ever (unlike say, Germany). So France and teh US don't actually differ in position. France just wants to allow inspections to pan out, rather than do an expensive, unnecessary war where people (frmo both sides) will undoubtedly die.

Double standard, Josh.

Not at all, soph. The situations aren't the same.

One world power or two world powers? Which is better?

On, and an Iraqi -> Turkey invasion is just laughable. It won't happen, not with the spotlight on Iraq. It would only even be plausible after a US -> Iraq invasion, and this is why NATO doesn't want to allow it through. No brainer.

Your idea of an invasion sounds good, but if you're going to rebuild Iraq, you have to take everyone out of the political sphere, and replace them with new people who embrace democracy. A small group of special ops isn't going to be able to do that. Especially if Iraq does have WMDs like everyone pretends, and uses them against them!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#601 2003-02-16 17:36:01

Re: President Bush - about bush

#602 2003-02-17 10:21:29

Re: President Bush - about bush

#603 2003-02-17 11:37:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#604 2003-02-17 16:58:54

Re: President Bush - about bush

#605 2003-02-18 08:31:07

Re: President Bush - about bush

#606 2003-02-18 22:45:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#607 2003-02-19 11:09:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#608 2003-02-19 14:07:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#609 2003-02-19 16:32:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#610 2003-02-20 12:10:38

Re: President Bush - about bush

#611 2003-02-20 12:20:27

Re: President Bush - about bush

#612 2003-02-22 17:59:11

Re: President Bush - about bush

#613 2003-02-22 18:35:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#614 2003-02-22 19:11:06

Re: President Bush - about bush

#615 2003-02-22 19:14:10

Re: President Bush - about bush

#616 2003-02-22 21:01:30

Re: President Bush - about bush

#617 2003-02-22 21:04:31

Re: President Bush - about bush

#618 2003-02-22 22:12:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#619 2003-02-22 22:19:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#620 2003-02-22 22:39:16

Re: President Bush - about bush

#621 2003-02-23 08:54:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#622 2003-02-23 09:08:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#623 2003-02-23 12:13:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#624 2003-02-23 12:18:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#625 2003-02-23 14:45:27

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer