President Bush - about bush

soph · 2003-02-23 15:02:36

Heheh, and you call me biased. I'm not going to waste my time showing to you what should be obvious:

1)Saddam has banned weapons, and is not complying (if the police aren't allowed to use force, how are they going to stop being bugged from the police station to the house?)

2)Chirac is, quite apparently, trying to amass power to himself, dividing the UN (which Powell has not done, he hasn't gone out and said "shut up," which of course, because an anti-Bush said it, you don't find offensive)

3) The UN isn't doing anything, trying to stop a well-justified war. The UN is useless if it doesn't stick to its word.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 15:08:45

1) Saddam has banned weapons and will comply with UNMOVICs desire to destroy those weapons (if they do not, then certainly I am behind a war, etc).

2) Chirac doesn't seem to be dividing the UN. China, Germany and Beligum seem to all go along with France's position. In fact, I would say that world support is not in favor of the US (I can get sources if you'd like). The reason you're offended by the shut up remark (which was a statement, not a command- it was already too late for it to have been a command), is because, quite apparently, you think that the world is better off with one world power instead of several.

3) The UN has stood up to everything within the resolutions. The war isn't well justified, and you failed to show how it is. Obviously the war would be justified in the coming days, if Iraq doesn't comply by destroying their weapons, but it's not going to happen.

soph · 2003-02-23 15:10:48

1)...

2) Read those articles again, he is certainly dividing the UN and the world by trying to bully the entering EU nations.

3) 1441

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 15:23:21

1) ... go here.

2) The articles you gave me were a bunch of crud, I need a list of nation states that explicitly say, ?We want to blow up Iraq, right now, screw inspections (which is essentially what the US is saying).? I am almost certain that most nations, in the world, are against a US war with Iraq. Indeed, just today, Mexico claimed it wasn't for war. Mexico is supposedly one of the most pro-Bush/pro-US allies we have.

3) Go look up the resolution, and show me which part explicitly says we are to go to war, please.

soph · 2003-02-23 15:30:39

2) You really must be trying to convince yourself here. That's funny, when I posted the articles, you said they were interesting. Are you lying now, or were you lying then? Do people have to say, "we hate chirac and france sucks!" for you to be convinced?

Tell the New York Times that their articles are crud!

3) Show me where it doesn't.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 15:36:32

2) Oh, they were certainly interesting, but we're talking about the UN here, not the EU... obviously there's still an issue in the EU about that, but we could blame the US or France just as equally. The articles you gave me had nothing to do with the whole of UN support, and were instead general France bashing (thus, though as an indicator to EU support, they're good, with regards to UN support, they're meaningless). Now, if you want, I could pull up some foreign articles talking about how good France is, and how bad the US is for bashing France, but no, that's just petty.

3) I showed you before, scroll up.

1441 isn't enough to go to war and the US knows it, otherwise we'd simply go to war. This, again, I must have reiterated for the third time now, is exactly why we're trying to get another resolution.

soph · 2003-02-23 15:47:42

We're trying to get another resolution to "shut up" france and germany, to use language of their level.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 15:51:22

Oh, and Beligum, and China, and the millions upon million of protestors?

Well, at least you agree with me. We're getting somewhere.

soph · 2003-02-23 16:01:24

Millions upon millions? You mean 4? Wow.

Yes, thats a good .001% of the world's population!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 16:12:52

Estimates say as much as 10 million. But so? Has there been any ammount of protesting at this level in the history of humanity? No. Then it's clearly significant.

soph · 2003-02-23 16:27:43

Estimates say as much as 10 million. But so? Has there been any ammount of protesting at this level in the history of humanity? No. Then it's clearly significant.

Where is that estimate from? No impartial source, that's for sure.

And yes, this level has been seen before. More people gathered in Latin America to see the Pope when he came, among other events.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 18:04:08

People were protesting the Pope?

soph · 2003-02-23 18:10:06

They were gathering for the Pope.

I would guess Vietnam got similar protests.

And the protests were not concentrated, MLK's marches were larger than any single protest staged agains "the war."

And how many of the protestors were actually protesting against the war, as opposed to globalization, Bush, oil, and so on? I would say 1/5 of them at least were protesting things other than the war.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 18:19:39

Um, no, what are you talking about? The 15th was basically, ?Protest war against Iraq? day. I don't know why you insist on dumbing it down, because there were quite a few protestors out there. Quite a few indeed.

Here's the first hit on Google: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Feb15.html

LONDON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - More than six million demonstrators turned out across the world on Saturday in a wave of protest supporting international leaders in urging the United States not to rush into a war against Iraq.

Blah, blah. Don't be in denial.

soph · 2003-02-23 18:28:52

I repeat my post:

how many of them care more about the war than protesting against bush?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 18:35:33

That question is ridiculous. It's like asking how many anti-Vietnam protesters were anti-President Johnson! Please be serious, here.

soph · 2003-02-23 18:38:33

It's a valid question, and you've yet to answer it.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 18:44:49

Um, firstly, how am I to answer it? Go out and ask each and every person, individually, if they're for war with Iraq (laughable), but merely ?against Bush??

There mere presence there, because it was specifically a day of anti-war with Iraq protests, signifies that they were against a war with Iraq.

Your question is quite irrelevant (especially since commentary suggests that the protestors weren't your usual flock of teenagers and hippies, but rather the average person!).

soph · 2003-02-23 18:46:53

Your question is quite irrelevant (especially since commentary suggests that the protestors weren't your usual flock of teenagers and hippies, but rather the average person!).

From what I've read, quite the contrary. They were a mishmash of people who used the occasion to flaunt any anti-US cause that was convenient. For many, it was a mass avenue to proselytize their message of anti-Americanism.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 18:51:07

And that made it any less of an anti-Iraqi war protest, how (assuming it's at all correct, as I've seen quite the opposite)?

soph · 2003-02-23 18:55:17

It means that there sure as hell weren't more than 5 million scattered protestors.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 19:00:17

Protestors are protestors. Your figures will be no more accurate than mine. We'll never know for sure how many there were. The point is that there were a lot of protests, and the streets were busy for a little while on the 15th. I don't even know what the point is here, except that you think that this isn't significant for some ridiculous reason.

Well, it certainly is, beacuse even you've agreed that the people (at least France and Germany) are the reason the US needs to get another resolution.

But I stand behind the statement that the majority of the protestors were average folk. The hardened protestors, the ones who are hardcore and protest every time there is one, only number in the hundred thousands, at most. There were certainly more than a hundred thousand protestors on the 15th.

soph · 2003-02-23 20:21:47

I don't even know what the point is here, except that you think that this isn't significant for some ridiculous reason.

Among Europeans, it has become fashionable to become anti-American. Jon Stewart put it best, when he said the Europeans would protest if Bush told us to go in and hug the Iraqis.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 20:56:33

I like how you equate being anti-Bush to being anti-American, now that is something that is fasionable here in the states.

Jon Stewarts comment is a joke, and it's not grounded in any real reality. Those Europeans who are inherently anti-Bush aren't too stupid to still be against him if he had a peaceful position.

soph · 2003-02-23 21:02:16

Jon Stewarts comment is a joke, and it's not grounded in any real reality. Those Europeans who are inherently anti-Bush aren't too stupid to still be against him if he had a peaceful position.

Oh, no? I wouldn't be so sure of that.

And Jon Stewart's point was exactly what my point is, they care more about railing against Bush than the war.

I didn't say anti-Bush is anti-American. Being anti-American means hating everything America does, which France fits into quite nicely.

Should we call countries who try to block us and blast us at every step allies? I think not. You may call it bias or whatever you want, allies are made through politics, and through their actions, these nations have demonstrated that they do not wish to be our allies.

So be it. Petty politics are turning the EU and UN into an avenue to blast the US. It's a joke. The fact that you can say the UN is becoming more powerful is laugable- it is becoming an avenue for Europe to try to blast America.

It's not about "wanting another superpower." No, I have no problem with China rising to our level. It's about Europe trying to garnish anger at America-for European leaders to try to become some heroes over something they care nothing about.

You've been reading too much of the Guardian, Josh.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#626 2003-02-23 15:02:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#627 2003-02-23 15:08:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

#628 2003-02-23 15:10:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#629 2003-02-23 15:23:21

Re: President Bush - about bush

#630 2003-02-23 15:30:39

Re: President Bush - about bush

#631 2003-02-23 15:36:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

#632 2003-02-23 15:47:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#633 2003-02-23 15:51:22

Re: President Bush - about bush

#634 2003-02-23 16:01:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

#635 2003-02-23 16:12:52

Re: President Bush - about bush

#636 2003-02-23 16:27:43

Re: President Bush - about bush

#637 2003-02-23 18:04:08

Re: President Bush - about bush

#638 2003-02-23 18:10:06

Re: President Bush - about bush

#639 2003-02-23 18:19:39

Re: President Bush - about bush

#640 2003-02-23 18:28:52

Re: President Bush - about bush

#641 2003-02-23 18:35:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#642 2003-02-23 18:38:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#643 2003-02-23 18:44:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#644 2003-02-23 18:46:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#645 2003-02-23 18:51:07

Re: President Bush - about bush

#646 2003-02-23 18:55:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#647 2003-02-23 19:00:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#648 2003-02-23 20:21:47

Re: President Bush - about bush

#649 2003-02-23 20:56:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#650 2003-02-23 21:02:16

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer