USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

clark · 2003-05-13 09:24:24

Translation: Yes, this is a pissing contest, and I need to prove that I am better than you in order to silence you, blah blah blah.

I don't care what you do Tim. It's strange that you care what I do.

Here we both are, on the internet, a public forum designed for the exchange of information. Yet you question my real world activities? Why? Anything I say is suspect as either an outright lie, or bragging to validate myself. I don't need that validation Tim.

. It's also reasonable to believe that Bush himself perhaps did not know everything, but Rumsfeld, maybe Cheney did.

Then he really would be like Regan.... gee, the Republican's involved in a coverup..... nooooooooo :laugh:

tim_perdue · 2003-05-13 09:28:16

I don't care what you do Tim. It's strange that you care what I do.

OK, so you are not doing anything to protect our liberties excepting venting on an internet forum. Very constructive.

clark · 2003-05-13 09:34:47

OK, so you are not doing anything to protect our liberties excepting venting on an internet forum.

Yeah Tim, I am doing nothing to protect our liberities except venting on an internet forum. Do you feel better about yourself now? Have you proven your point? What was it again?

Perhaps you should reexamine yourself and figure out what exactly it is that is missing from your life that you require others to make you feel better about yourself.

That would be very constructive.

RobertDyck · 2003-05-13 09:38:36

Canada is far more indebted than the US is, despite all the "free lunch" and huge trade surplus I've mentioned.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. federal debt projection for 2003 is $3,816 billion. That is 3.8 trillion dollars! According to the U.S. Census Bureau population clock, the population of the U.S. for May 13, 2003, is 290,959,553. That works out to $13,115.22 per capita. According to the Canadian department of finance, the total interest-bearing debt on March 31, 2002, was $583.431 billion Canadian dollars. According to Statistics Canada, the population of Canada was 31,499,560 in January, 2003. That works out to $18,521.88 per capita in Canadian dollars. According to the Royal Bank, the exchange rate today to buy Canadian dollars and pay in U.S. dollars is $1.3762 Canadian per U.S. dollar. That means the Canadian federal debt per capita in U.S. dollars is $13,458.71, which is so close to the U.S. debt that which is higher will fluctuate with the exchange rate. Most importantly, the Canadian federal budget is running a surplus; while the U.S. federal government has returned to deficit spending. The Canadian budgetary surplus for 2001-02 was $8.9 billion, although for 2002-03 it was reduced to $3 billion (Canadian dollars). The U.S. estimated deficit for 2003 is $246 billion (U.S. dollars).

tim_perdue · 2003-05-13 09:49:45

Perhaps you should reexamine yourself and figure out what exactly it is that is missing from your life that you require others to make you feel better about yourself.

You're the one who ripped me for saying Bush was launching a relatively "mild attack" on civil liberties. Come to find out, you're not doing anything about it.

Break out your checkbook and write a few checks, or go and volunteer some time for some democrats. If you say you can't afford it or don't have the time, you won't have anyone to blame but yourself when your freedoms shrink or disappear.

tim_perdue · 2003-05-13 09:51:58

I already provided a link with facts about total indebtedness. Canada's debt ratio is ~1.0, the US is about 0.6.

Here's the link again:
http://www.mof.go.jp/english/budget/pamphlet/cjfc_g.htm

clark · 2003-05-13 10:02:46

You're the one who ripped me for saying Bush was launching a relatively "mild attack" on civil liberties.

Ah, so you object to my opinion by questioning my real world activities which cannot be verified one way or the other? One, you should probably try to focus on the merits of my opinion rather than attempt to disqualify me based on my character. Two, Bush and Ashcroft have done much more to errode our civil liberities, so I question how you can characterize it as 'mild'.

Come to find out, you're not doing anything about it.

Actually, you've discovered nothing. Your juvenille attempts to ferret this out will only continue to fail.

Break out your checkbook and write a few checks, or go and volunteer some time for some democrats.

Are these my only options? How small your world must be.

If you say you can't afford it or don't have the time, you won't have anyone to blame but yourself when your freedoms shrink or disappear.

It's my fault for the eroision of civil liberities if a majority of people, generally uninformed by your own previous statements, decide to elect leaders that will propose laws that pander to the lowest common denominator?

A majority of people voted for Gore, but Bush had a majority of the electorate. The actual decision of 'who' won was determined by the judicial branch along party lines. Where exactly was there a place for any voter to do anything to influence the last campaign?

RobertDyck · 2003-05-13 10:07:47

I already provided a link with facts about total indebtedness. Canada's debt ratio is ~1.0, the US is about 0.6.
Here's the link again:
http://www.mof.go.jp/english/budget/pamphlet/cjfc_g.htm

Ah, pretty graphs which depict ratios based on gross domestic product. The Canadian finance minister also likes to talk about ratios based on GDP. I prefer to look at the hard numbers and calculate per capita; that says how much each taxpayer owes and must pay taxes to support interest. I guess what your graphs really show is that the U.S. still has a higher GDP per capita than Canada. However, if the U.S. economy doesn't turn around that won't last for long.

But again, please stop accusing Canada of getting a "free lunch". Canada went through a period of insanely high taxes to turn around the federal deficit. Now Canada can brag about having the longest sustained budgetary surplus in the western world, but that was bought at a high price (previous years? taxes) and taxpayers/voters will not tolerate a return to deficit spending. Hmm. Accountability to the voters; sounds like democracy. You might try it.

tim_perdue · 2003-05-13 10:10:08

Actually, you've discovered nothing. Your juvenille attempts to ferret this out will only continue to fail.

Oooh, mystery man. I'm impressed.

One, you should probably try to focus on the merits of my opinion rather than attempt to disqualify me based on my character.

As opposed to your attack on my character in the previous message? Normally, I'm impressed by your knowledge of world affairs (and geopolitics) and have said so in the past, so I can't figure out why you suddenly take such a hostile tone to the "mild attack on liberties" statement. Why not explain yourself? Have you been personally under attack by Bush?

tim_perdue · 2003-05-13 10:19:56

Actually, you've discovered nothing. Your juvenille attempts to ferret this out will only continue to fail.
Are these my only options? How small your world must be.

And by the way, what's missing in your life that you have to belittle other people and call names?

clark · 2003-05-13 10:26:03

Normally, I'm impressed by your knowledge of world affairs (and geopolitics) and have said so in the past, so I can't figure out why you suddenly take such a hostile tone to the "mild attack on liberties" statement. Why not explain yourself?

Becuase I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'mild attack' on personal liberities and I am a bit dismayed that you would suggest that an encroachment upon civili liberities, in any amount, could be acceptable.

It is a dissapointing sign that things are getting progressively worse within this country.

You generally have a level approach, and while I can't neccessarily agree with you on certain issues, it is strange that you can so non-chalantly accept the developments that are occuring.

The uninformed masses act as we would expect, lead by whatever news channel they favor, in the time slot they belong. Yet I will accept you as 'informed', but
I am frighetened by the implication that the informed can accept these developments as good, or even rational.

It's not.

Have you been personally under attack by Bush?

We all have.

We now have the precedent in place where the government can determine that you are or are not a terroist, and based on a mere 'suspicision' the government may violate all manner of our personal privacy, with little to no evidence to prove their claim. If challenged, precedent and law now allow the government to simply hide their lack of evidence under a veil of 'national security'. The masses are mobilized to accept whatever the executive branch tells them based on the 'threat' of terroism, which ALL have agreed will not end, ever.

I once asked what people would do if a stranger came to your door, asking for refuge becuase the federal government claimed they were a 'terroist' and an enemy of the State. Would you hide or help such a person?

I ask because this was fundamentally the same situation 1940's germans faced when Jews and other 'enemies of the state' appeared upon their door steps, asking for help.

Of course we don't have death camps. We just have Camp X ray in Cuba- don't want to allow 'obvious' criminals any legal protections offered by the Constution... Just imagine how many "camp-x whatever" are being set up in Iraq- the military has full authority in Iraq- judicial oversight DOES NOT apply.

tim_perdue · 2003-05-13 10:53:44

Becuase I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'mild attack' on personal liberities and I am a bit dismayed that you would suggest that an encroachment upon civili liberities, in any amount, could be acceptable.
You generally have a level approach, and while I can't neccessarily agree with you on certain issues, it is strange that you can so non-chalantly accept the developments that are occuring.

I haven't nonchalantly accepted anything. Since 9/11 I spend almost all of my time reading worldwide news to get a better understanding of what's going on and why. The vast majority of people do not have the time that I do to undertake this task.

I believe my reading has given me a very good perspective, and it's difficult to get too alarmed when you find out that, indeed, things are worse elsewhere in most cases. For example, I am very much against running the kinds of deficits Bush proposes, but when I find out we're better off than most, it's hard to get violently upset about it.

We now have the precedent in place where the government can determine that you are or are not a terroist, and based on a mere 'suspicision' the government may violate all manner of our personal privacy, with little to no evidence to prove their claim. If challenged, precedent and law now allow the government to simply hide their lack of evidence under a veil of 'national security'. The masses are mobilized to accept whatever the executive branch tells them based on the 'threat' of terroism, which ALL have agreed will not end, ever.

I agree 100% with you on the issue of the president being able to declare that someone can be held without trial and in secrecy. This, and the unprecedented attack on Iraq, is what has caused me to turn from a normally hardcore republican into someone who sends money to left-wing-fanatic organizations. Traditionally, democrats are the war-starters, not republicans.

I read the constitution a year ago and I'm pretty sure I saw a clause in there about suspending writ of habeus corpus during times of invasion. To my knowledge, only 1 US citizen has had this happen (the alleged dirty-bomber suspect).

The constitution, to my understanding, also separates non-citizens from citizens in terms of what rights you have. To my knowledge, only non-citizens have been deported in secrecy, and supposedly all of these have VISA violations. (IMHO this should all be done under a glaring light rather than in secrecy)

Yes, I am watching this particular stuff, and the TIA system that was proposed, very carefully. From what I can tell so far, they are in-line with clauses in the constitution for 220-some years.

I also believe that we have a virtually unmatched level of liberty in this country which most others don't have, despite their ranting. We have constitutionally-guaranteed liberties and a mechanism for protecting them from congressional and executive infringment (the court system).

I believe that several of the activities taking place now will be struck down by the supreme court, strengthening precedent in favor of liberty and having a net-positive effect. I also believe that Bush's far-right policies are going to cause him problems in 2004. If right-of-center people like me are rejecting Bush, I think he's in big trouble.

clark · 2003-05-13 11:14:24

I believe my reading has given me a very good perspective, and it's difficult to get too alarmed when you find out that, indeed, things are worse elsewhere in most cases.

The problem with being King on top of the Hill of Shit is that it's still a hill of shit.

I agree 100% with you on the issue of the president being able to declare that someone can be held without trial and in secrecy. This, and the unprecedented attack on Iraq, is what has caused me to turn from a normally hardcore republican into someone who sends money to left-wing-fanatic organizations.

Then how can you characterize the assulat on our civil liberities as 'mild'? Perhaps it is mild compared to elsewhere, yet I would hope that we as americans might set out own standard, and not try to proclaim that we stand highest on the hill...

I read the constitution a year ago and I'm pretty sure I saw a clause in there about suspending writ of habeus corpus during times of invasion. To my knowledge, only 1 US citizen has had this happen (the alleged dirty-bomber suspect).

Yet we are not being invaded. The president has not declared a suspension of habeus corpus. The far more frightening situation that has developed is the ability of the government to indefintily 'detain' ANY individual, foreign or domestic, as either a possible 'terroist' (defined as anyone who 'supports' terroists, or terroist organization- this can be as simple as a cash dontation to a charity or a church) or as a 'material witness' related to an ongoing anti-terroism case.

The government does not have to name these individuals, and does not have to allow them legal counsel. The government does not have to name witness's, or even produce evidence.

The constitution, to my understanding, also separates non-citizens from citizens in terms of what rights you have.

It is an affront to human dignity and to our reason to suppose that NOT every individual is entitiled to a fair and speedy trial, and to know what evidence exsists against them. To borrow a phrase, "these rights are self evident".

From what I can tell so far, they are in-line with clauses in the constitution for 220-some years.

You mean the elastic clause? :laugh:

We have constitutionally-guaranteed liberties and a mechanism for protecting them from congressional and executive infringment (the court system).

Ah, the same court system that contiually defers to the 'judgement' of the executive branch, as they are supposed to do in a 'time of war'- what's that, the war on terror isn't going to end? The thing about our system of government is that it has no checks and balances when two pieces of the government act in concert- the only thing that can set it to right is the voter... which again comes back to how informed the populace is....

I believe that several of the activities taking place now will be struck down by the supreme court, strengthening precedent in favor of liberty and having a net-positive effect.

Where do you derive this optimisim given that the Suprem e Court has consistenly supported the position of the Executive branch?

tim_perdue · 2003-05-13 11:29:15

Then how can you characterize the assulat on our civil liberities as 'mild'?

I said it was mild compared to vietnam and WWII. WWII... go look on the internet for WWII propaganda posters. Now that is frightening! Japanese were all rounded up and held in, like Nevada or New Mexico or something. During Vietnam, the CIA was working domestically to disrupt anti-war groups.

Yet we are not being invaded. The president has not declared a suspension of habeus corpus.

I'll disagree. We are invaded (or were) by people who want to destroy us. It's not people who are "oppressed" by us as the damned europeans claim, it's people who want to have a totalitarian islamic empire in the middle east, and we stand in the way of that. Many foreign nations, whom we have not attacked, were supporting their efforts. By all rights, we could have attacked Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Pakistan for the terror attacks here and the attacks in the 70s, 80s, and 90s which went unanswered.

We didn't.

The far more frightening situation that has developed is the ability of the government to indefintily 'detain' ANY individual, foreign or domestic, as either a possible 'terroist' (defined as anyone who 'supports' terroists, or terroist organization- this can be as simple as a cash dontation to a charity or a church) or as a 'material witness' related to an ongoing anti-terroism case.
The government does not have to name these individuals, and does not have to allow them legal counsel. The government does not have to name witness's, or even produce evidence.
It is an affront to human dignity and to our reason to suppose that NOT every individual is entitiled to a fair and speedy trial, and to know what evidence exsists against them. To borrow a phrase, "these rights are self evident".

I'm with you on many of these things, however it appears that these are "weaknesses" in the constitution which perhaps need an ammendment. At one point only "all white men who own property were created equal", and that has been expanded with various amendments to include blacks and women.

I wouldn't look for any of the democrats to be proposing an amendment to expand all the protections to non-citizen terrorists any time soon.

Where do you derive this optimisim given that the Suprem e Court has consistenly supported the position of the Executive branch?

The Supreme Court strikes down stuff all the time. If you are wanting them to strike down stuff that is legitimately allowed under the constitution, they aren't going to.

clark · 2003-05-13 11:51:51

I said it was mild compared to vietnam and WWII.

Perhaps. Afterall, we don't have the national guard firing on college students...yet.

However, most of the recent revisions to the intelligence community now allows them the powers that they once had during those times you sighted. It's a rollback.

We stopped monitoring politcal affiliations. We stopped monitoring places of religious worship. Why? Becuase of the abuses that resulted in allowing too much power with too little oversight. Now we begin again....

Japanese were all rounded up and held in, like Nevada or New Mexico or something.

And Arab's are being rounded up, or ordered to register at the local INS. People are fingerprinted upon arrival to this country for the simple misfortune of having been born in a certain country. A registry is being se-up that assigns 'threat-levels' to individuals who wish to fly the friendly skies.

I'll disagree. We are invaded (or were) by people who want to destroy us.

Tim, you're pretty bright, so you should know this: What is the classic means for a person to gain power over people?

You win a cookie if you say that it is to set one group of people against another group of people.

Bad economic times and we blame the dirty immigrant. Feeling insecure? Blame another group- say they are out to destroy another group, etc.

It's not people who are "oppressed" by us as the damned europeans claim, it's people who want to have a totalitarian islamic empire in the middle east, and we stand in the way of that.

And apparently we want a judically appointed neo-religious tyrant who wishes to impose our cultural values onto the world, and they stand in the way of that... Whatever happened to self-determination?

Of course we don't allow that in the middle east, which is their PRIMARY complaint, becuase we are too interested in maintiaing the status quo, to our benefit, by supporting non-democratic regimes that oppress their peoples. Iraq is but the latest farce.

By all rights, we could have attacked Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Pakistan for the terror attacks here and the attacks in the 70s, 80s, and 90s which went unanswered.

Then by all rights these 'terroists' are justified in their actions against us since we support the local governments that oppress them.

I wouldn't look for any of the democrats to be proposing an amendment to expand all the protections to non-citizen terrorists any time soon.

No ammendment is needed. he Supre Court has ruled that the constution does apply to non-citizens. That's why we have Camp x ray off US soil.

If you are wanting them to strike down stuff that is legitimately allowed under the constitution, they aren't going to.

So then the question is it 'legitimate' to begin with, and can we expect imparitality from a court that has consistenly made decisions along party lines?

Bill White · 2003-05-13 12:01:32

Hey guys - Did you miss the memo?

Our President is a "unite-er and not a divider!" Get with the program!

Maybe Dubya does dream of being Henry V but has anyone read Henry VI?

= = = =

PS - If we are fighting with the Canadians, how united can we be? What nation on Earth is our more natural ally than Canada?

clark · 2003-05-13 12:04:18

Yeah, he 'united' with other progressive governments that saw as he did, and 'united' they will 'divide' the spoils of their actions.... :laugh:

good point Bill.

Gives a new spin on compasionate conservative: We will kill only as many foriegners as neccessary to meet our goals.

A kinder, fuzzier world for all!

Bill White · 2003-05-13 12:21:23

If I am sanguine its because power is a jealous mistress and Dubya's Republican allies will soon grow weary of his having all of it held in his hands (and Karl Rove's). Dubya is all about power and hates to share. And, right now, the glow Republicans feel at whacking Clinton (via Gore) has yet to wear off, but it will.

Here in Illinois, Senator Peter Fitzgerald ( R ) will not run again (because he and Dubya don't see eye to eye - meaning Fitzgerald won't toe the Bushian line) and the Bush favorite, former governor Jim Edgar said "no thanks" to running. Now, odds are any random Democrat can pick up this Senate seat in 2004.

Don't forget that eight years of Dubya will position Hillary in great shape for 2008. Maybe Clinton helped Gore lose. ;-))

tim_perdue · 2003-05-13 12:23:35

And Arab's are being rounded up, or ordered to register at the local INS. People are fingerprinted upon arrival to this country for the simple misfortune of having been born in a certain country.

Yes, all the illegals are being rounded up and being told to register. Is it your position that enforcing immigration laws is somehow illegal? (Yes, I realize we are only now beginning to enforce laws that are on the books, and only for some groups and it is open for potential abuse).

Tim, you're pretty bright, so you should know this: What is the classic means for a person to gain power over people?
You win a cookie if you say that it is to set one group of people against another group of people.
Bad economic times and we blame the dirty immigrant. Feeling insecure? Blame another group- say they are out to destroy another group, etc.

If you're in the crowd that says Bush staged the 9/11 attacks to grab power, you're out to lunch and cannot be reasoned with. Bush ran on a platform of withdrawing from the world, and even cutting the military as part of a transformation.

I am open to the possibility that some elements of the government deliberately turned a blind eye to the coming attacks, but it's more likely they were all too busy handing out pork and tax cuts to their friends, and going on vacation. Most likely, they were asleep at the switch and fucked up big time, IMHO.

If there is a deliberate high-level conspiracy to "allow" terrorist attacks, why wouldn't the democrats make hay out of this? From what I can tell, they had all the same intelligence and were equally asleep at the switch.

And apparently we want a judically appointed neo-religious tyrant

You continue to propagate the myth that Bush is illegitimate and appointed by conservative judges. Several recounts have been done and every single one showed bush winning. Now, I believe he would not have won if all the stupid old folks in FL had filled out their ballots right, but if you're too stupid to fill out a ballot should your vote count anyway?

who wishes to impose our cultural values onto the world, and they stand in the way of that... Whatever happened to self-determination?

At the risk of sounding as if I support excessive adventures in the middle east, I will say you're nuts if you think any of the gov'ts there are self-determined, let alone in Iraq. None of the governments there were "installed" by the US.

Of course we don't allow that in the middle east, which is their PRIMARY complaint, becuase we are too interested in maintiaing the status quo, to our benefit, by supporting non-democratic regimes that oppress their peoples. Iraq is but the latest farce.

This perpetuates the myth that it is just "us" supporting these governments. In fact France and Russia were saddam's biggest supporters and Japan and Europe are far more dependent on the middle east than we are.

We are the biggest target, of course, not that we are doing anything that's different than a dozen other countries as far as relations in this region. This is a common farcical belief that the US alone supports these governments and therefore we deserve to be terrorized. Bullshit.

This is the common Euro-lefty clap-trap of saying that we "support dictators" while also railing against us because we don't support Iran and Cuba and others.

Also, if "oppression" is the root of terrorism, why aren't cubans, north koreans, etc etc etc all a bunch of terrorists? Oppression has nothing to do with it - it's politics mixed with a terrorist culture.

Bill White · 2003-05-13 12:36:43

Tim - the Bush goal was not merely to remove Saddam. His bigger goal was to remove Saddam in a way that discredited the United Nations and marginalized the French. Saddam was the tool not the objective.

And it seems to me Bush is very clearly engaged in "scapegoating" terrorist evildoers to justify a great many dubious projects. Did anyone in his administration know about 9/11 in advance? Nah! No way. Have they used 9/11 for partisan political gain? Absolutely!

Why are Homeland Security workers non union? Unions donate money to Democrats.

Why do Republicans favor tort reform? Trial lawyers donate money to Democrats.

Why does FOX bash Hollywood? Actors donate money to Democrats.

Its all about money, and power.

clark · 2003-05-13 12:42:47

. Is it your position that enforcing immigration laws is somehow illegal? (Yes, I realize we are only now beginning to enforce laws that are on the books, and only for some groups and it is open for potential abuse).

The enforcement of laws unequally is wrong. Would you care to argue otherwise?

If you're in the crowd that says Bush staged the 9/11 attacks to grab power, you're out to lunch and cannot be reasoned with.

I have made no such claim. However, this administration HAS benefited from the events.

Bush ran on a platform of withdrawing from the world, and even cutting the military as part of a transformation.

And he is delivering on his promises. A withdrawl from international treaties and instutions, coupled with a transformation and new direction of emphasis for future military development.

You continue to propagate the myth that Bush is illegitimate and appointed by conservative judges.

It's not a myth, he was appointed by conservative judges. Wether or not he is legitiamte or illigitmate requires us to take a long hard look at the 2000 election in its totality. I believe there is enough evidence to cast doubt on the legitmacy of this president, which has since gone to the way side with the recent 'war'.

Ever play three card Monty?

Now, I believe he would not have won if all the stupid old folks in FL had filled out their ballots right, but if you're too stupid to fill out a ballot should your vote count anyway?

Perhaps we should reinstuitute qualifiers for votes. When we talk about the process we neccessarily ignore the overall goal, which is realizing the will of the people. We could have had a re-vote, but that wouldn't be 'fair'.

At the risk of sounding as if I support excessive adventures in the middle east, I will say you're nuts if you think any of the gov'ts there are self-determined, let alone in Iraq. None of the governments there were "installed" by the US.

No, we can thank the British and the French. However, we DO support oppresive regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, et al with military aid. These countries then use the military aid to purchase US military equipment which they use to maintain their power over the populace. We may not have installed them, but we certainly maintain them.

In fact France and Russia were saddam's biggest supporters and Japan and Europe are far more dependent on the middle east than we are.

Fine, lets accept that we are somehow less dependant on middle east oil (of course we have to ignore realities like the USA having the largest industrial economy, and the highest per capita use of energy in the world, but I digress)- we are dependant upon the Europeans and the Japanese though. We want to keep them in line since the Cold War is over- now suddenly, we control the second largest oil reserve in the world...

We are the biggest target, of course, not that we are doing anything that's different than a dozen other countries as far as relations in this region. This is a common farcical belief that the US alone supports these governments and therefore we deserve to be terrorized.

If you look around, you'll notice that terroism occurs in other places besides the US.

This is the common Euro-lefty clap-trap of saying that we "support dictators" while also railing against us because we don't support Iran and Cuba and others.

No, we support whoever we must as long as *our* interests are served. We don't support Cuba or Iran becuase doing so dosen't further our interests. It is a cold, heartless, and ultimetly self defeating strategy.

Palomar · 2003-05-13 12:50:46

OK, so you are not doing anything to protect our liberties excepting venting on an internet forum.
Yeah Tim, I am doing nothing to protect our liberities except venting on an internet forum. Do you feel better about yourself now? Have you proven your point? What was it again?
Perhaps you should reexamine yourself and figure out what exactly it is that is missing from your life that you require others to make you feel better about yourself.
That would be very constructive.

*Feeling a bit on the antagonistic side today, Clark?

:laugh:

--Cindy

P.S.: Tim: I voted for Chuck Grassley whilst still an Iowan. He's good people.

tim_perdue · 2003-05-13 12:56:29

Tim - the Bush goal was not merely to remove Saddam. His bigger goal was to remove Saddam in a way that discredited the United Nations and marginalized the French. Saddam was the tool not the objective.

If it was the plan, the UN and French played right into their hands. I'm more inclined to believe Bush actually wanted to go through the UN, even if the various neocons didn't. Whether the UN/French were "right" or not is a pretty gray area IMHO. There certainly was no justification as far as WMD were concerned, but there were various other reasons which some people could say was sufficient to start that war (genocide of Kurds and Marsh Arabs for starters)

No, we support whoever we must as long as *our* interests are served. We don't support Cuba or Iran becuase doing so dosen't further our interests.

Fair enough. That's geopolitics and realpolitik - it just so happens that we have all the high cards right now. France and Russia are scratching around trying to create a couple of high-ish cards (maybe 6's and 7's) which they lost some time back. It's not just the US rooting around for power, it's everyone, that's how it works.

clark · 2003-05-13 13:07:01

*Feeling a bit on the antagonistic side today, Clark?

Well, well, well. A post from Cindy without the usual "I have nothing further to say and I am not interested in a debate."

Should I take the absence of such a statement as an indiciation that my current state is open for debate to you? :laugh:

I did some looking around and I found this link to a Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....nd=true

Oil for Security Fueled Close Ties (Saudi Arabia & US ties)

This is the secopnd in a series, but I found this report to be quite informative.

Bill White · 2003-05-13 13:22:12

Tim - the Bush goal was not merely to remove Saddam. His bigger goal was to remove Saddam in a way that discredited the United Nations and marginalized the French. Saddam was the tool not the objective.
If it was the plan, the UN and French played right into their hands. I'm more inclined to believe Bush actually wanted to go through the UN, even if the various neocons didn't. Whether the UN/French were "right" or not is a pretty gray area IMHO. There certainly was no justification as far as WMD were concerned, but there were various other reasons which some people could say was sufficient to start that war (genocide of Kurds and Marsh Arabs for starters)

I have made an analogy to FDR's 1930s court packing plan.

Dear UN (or 1930s Supreme Court) do exactly as I say or I will render you irrelevant. Once Dubya threw down this marker, the UN was irrelevant, however they may have voted.

Voting in favor of war on threadbare evidence of WMD would have made the UN a US puppet. As it is, the UN has been circumvented and the full scale anti-France media campaign continues.

Where are the WMD, by the way?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2003-05-13 09:24:24

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#77 2003-05-13 09:28:16

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#78 2003-05-13 09:34:47

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#79 2003-05-13 09:38:36

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#80 2003-05-13 09:49:45

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#81 2003-05-13 09:51:58

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#82 2003-05-13 10:02:46

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#83 2003-05-13 10:07:47

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#84 2003-05-13 10:10:08

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#85 2003-05-13 10:19:56

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#86 2003-05-13 10:26:03

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#87 2003-05-13 10:53:44

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#88 2003-05-13 11:14:24

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#89 2003-05-13 11:29:15

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#90 2003-05-13 11:51:51

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#91 2003-05-13 12:01:32

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#92 2003-05-13 12:04:18

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#93 2003-05-13 12:21:23

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#94 2003-05-13 12:23:35

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#95 2003-05-13 12:36:43

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#96 2003-05-13 12:42:47

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#97 2003-05-13 12:50:46

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#98 2003-05-13 12:56:29

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#99 2003-05-13 13:07:01

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#100 2003-05-13 13:22:12

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

Board footer