|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted May 11, 2004 02:39 PM |
|
|
Yes, he had the WMDs because Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration gave them to him.
And he used them to kill his own people while Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration where his allies. They knew, and they did not intervene.
Quote:
[...] there was a very good chance he still had them [...]
Oh, now it´s only "there was a good chance"? Not waterproof evidence anymore? As there was only "a good chance", why didn´t you let the weapon inspectors do their job? Why did you rather start a war based on your "good chance"?
____________
|
|
pietjebell
Promising
Known Hero
positive
|
|
posted May 11, 2004 04:06 PM |
|
|
Well.. I dont wanna offend you americans but well he was voted democraticaly.. A majority did want him for president..
I always tend to think: The one who does best in the media, who got the best circus surounding him, wins the elections..
Not only in US, but almost anywhere..
Why?
Because the vast majority of people haven 't got the slightest clue what a political person or party is all about.. But he/she does so well on tv..
Well: 
Anyway, about Bush?
____________
BOOT: what U give yur computer to start
|
|
khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 11, 2004 04:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well.. I dont wanna offend you americans but well he was voted democraticaly.. A majority did want him for president..
George W. Bush was not elected by the majority. Al Gore actually won the popular vote, meaning more Americans voted for him. However, George W. Bush won the necessary Electoral College numbers to secure him the presidency.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 11, 2004 05:07 PM |
|
|
what your saying consis was debated like this and was figured in the great compromise. Larger staes Vs Smaller states. Quote:
incase you need follow up: The great compromise was made to resolve the debates that each state should have an equal vote, or that each state should have power by its population
A pure democracy is what by who defines it? I know you are thinking that it should be majority by the people, but the way its configured is so each state has some but not to much resolve. Meaning, the little states arent pushed out of the way of a fair vote since they have fewer population. Wether or not this is right or wrong, is not up to me to decide.
In anycase, the states with huge population have drastic tolls on the election. Just not per person. What if the president says forget all the tiny states and the big states will get everything? Then the big states would make up a popular vote which kills the little states due to their signifigance on power or votes by mass people. Versus the unsignifigance of smaller states. complicate the matter into reality and decide, since its your call, what it should be. The little states dont number equally against big ones and thats important.
----
Youforgot sick mind, plenty of those in the forum to use  lol
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted May 11, 2004 07:52 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 11 May 2004
|
Is the election of the president supposed to be by the people (collective) or by the states? IIRC, the electoral college system has given a different result than the popular vote before, with the benefitting party varying according to the times. It is, of course, one more feature of the American system that handicaps third party candidates, but I digress.
In this past election, the state that finally decided the result was Florida, and there was considerable contention over how well-represented the people's votes really were. That whole debacle is in the past now since the practical results cannot be changed. However, it rears its ugly head again every time someone states without qualification that Bush was fairly elected.
Edit for Consis: Oh, and for the record, I don't think that election was a wake-up call to those who did not vote. Among other things, you're assuming all those folks who didn't vote are now unhappy with the results, and that's faulty assumption (if you have to lump all non-voters together, you should assume they didn't care one way or the other, since they didn't bother to speak up). Anyway, I did vote, but my vote didn't matter in the big picture. My state would have gone to Gore regardless. Now that Minnesota's a swing state, my vote will matter more. Conclusion: The whole system is screwy. 
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 11, 2004 10:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, he had the WMDs because Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration gave them to him.
And he used them to kill his own people while Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration where his allies. They knew, and they did not intervene.
He had a weapons program, every government in the world acknowledges it. Why don't you?
And most of the killings Saddam did, were happening during the Clinton administration...
Quote:
Quote:
[...] there was a very good chance he still had them [...]
Oh, now it´s only "there was a good chance"? Not waterproof evidence anymore? As there was only "a good chance", why didn´t you let the weapon inspectors do their job? Why did you rather start a war based on your "good chance"?
I'm sorry, I'd rather take out the man that wants to do me harm and more than likely has the capabilities to do such, than wait around for him to make a move. I don't know, maybe in Germany, they wait forsomeone to lunge at them with a sword, but not everyone is like that.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 11, 2004 11:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And most of the killings Saddam did, were happening during the Clinton administration...
Could you provide a source for this claim?
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
2Xtremetotake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2004 11:21 PM |
|
|
Look, im not sure what party my opinions are more like, but here they are.
I think the United States needs to stay the hell out of other countrys business. If the iraqi people didnt like it, then they would have done what Haiti did and revolt. Alright, say president bush suspescted weapons of mass destruction...thats fine, send investigators. He did. The results were squeaky clean. Should have left it at there. The US needs to stay out of other countrys business unless it directly involves us and our safety. Afghanistan i understand. Now we overthrew saddam. Leave Iraq. Quit taking in innocent prisoners. Civilian iraqi's are being kidnapped off the streets just because they look slightly suspicious. But its too late to leave Iraq now. We've pissed them off. Bush just keeps sending more and more troops to their deaths for what? what he calls "Humanitarian service" Ha! I think this war has killed more people than saved. Unless president bush is trying to reduce world population, he has no reason to be sending our troops to their deaths.
Rebuttle, anyone?
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 11, 2004 11:33 PM |
|
|
Its a war in only some point of views.
I think had we left everything alone, that we would have lost more people than you think 2x. What about all the other terrorists we KNOW about? If we leave Iraq we cant trust them to investigate for us. Technicly we can hardly trust them to never attack us. The reason we ARE there isnt because we dont trust them, its because if we werent there we know for certain that there would be more conspiring and potentialy devestating actions against us.
Double edged sword,
with this course of action we're making people angry like bort and those who have potential to send pain.
If we didnt take this route, then the people who were already angry would try to take us out. You realize, theres a chaance you and your families could have died had we not moved in? You dont see.. the great possibility of this. Lets seen, NewYork.. Threat of 2 more attacks.. Why are you Borts taking your ability to have lives for granted?
It shouldnt be along time until the actions of diplomacy and peace negotiations are taken by the US. But we wont be able to until the worst things are cooled off (terrorists with potential to kill the whole world or just the US.)
I think I've already made clear, if we were like the people we are after we wouldve killed many of innocents and started a WW3. but check it, we're not like them and people who are mad need to realize their hostilities is what drives us.
its like this.. theres a bad alley cat and we're holding it down so it can hardly scratch us. We're putting our fist in its face so it knows what will happen if it strikes. When we turn our back on it, it will gash out the side of your face with claws like a fillet knife!
This earth is our home as much as it is theres and if they have a problem and are getting mad because we're protecting our house then their pretty stupid cuz its not about them its about the enemy were after.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
2Xtremetotake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2004 11:40 PM |
|
|
Celfious.
More facts:
1.) Not a single terrorist on 9/11 was from iraq. 16 were from Afghanistan, and 3 were from Saudi Arabia.
2.) Why not attack Saudi Arabia, they are certianly more dangerous than iraq. You wanna know why?? its a simple 3 letter word. Give up? Oil.
3.) The United States went to war with afghanistan without it even being voted on by the UN. Later, when the UN DID vote, the majority was opposing the war.
4.) If another country went to war without voting in the UN, we would have taken direct action. If something doesnt go the United State's way, we MAKE it go our way. The US is a bully.
5.) The most successful nations- Rome, Nazi Germany, Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, Britian, Medieval France...you want to know what they all had in common? Totalitarian rule. Sure, it all came to an end. Has anyone ever accomplished anything spectacular in a democracy?? Just so you know, the US has the highest crime rate out of every country in the world. It also has the highest divorce rate.
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 12:01 AM |
|
|
"1.) Not a single terrorist on 9/11 was from iraq. 16 were from Afghanistan, and 3 were from Saudi Arabia."
*~*~*~Well, I dont know the reasons were in Iraq. It wasnt sadam? We took away a tryant who killed his own people. His people lived in fear.
"2.) Why not attack Saudi Arabia, they are certianly more dangerous than iraq. You wanna know why?? its a simple 3 letter word. Give up? Oil."
*~*~*~Imagine that. An undeveloped country with their hands on one of the fuel resources needed in a developed country.
Electricity shouldnt be a concern because merely mechanical energy can give electricity. We should NOT burn crude oil for electrical generation.
"3.) The United States went to war with afghanistan without it even being voted on by the UN. Later, when the UN DID "vote, the majority was opposing the war. "
*~*~*~The opinions of another country do matter since its everyones earth in a way.. I dont know why we're in afghanistan. I didnt know there was a war I thought we were hunting terrorists and cutting off all availability to resources such as uranium 235.
"4.) If another country went to war without voting in the UN, we would have taken direct action. If something doesnt go the United State's way, we MAKE it go our way. The US is a bully. "
*~*~*~ Oh, its our way? For one thing, I think we would vote no if the "war" was unjust. If the war is unjust like between sadam and revolution we would assist the good side. For another, theres alot of things in the world we wouldnt intervene in. We dont pick fights, the elements within picks us. I doubt there are many things we intervend in that we shouldnt have. Agree or disagree? i didnt read that book either.
"5.) The most successful nations- Rome, Nazi Germany, Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, Britian, Medieval France...you want to know what they all had in common? Totalitarian rule. Sure, it all came to an end. Has anyone ever accomplished anything spectacular in a democracy??"
*~*~*~ I heard someone say utopia is impossible. Spectacular things have happened out of democacy yea but nothing like i think your refering too.. And i cant say if we had a different form it couldn't be better
6"Just so you know, the US has the highest crime rate out of every country in the world. It also has the highest divorce rate."
If we really wanna bring up negatives within populations we can speak of those from the country where they burn their wives and stone people to death. isnt that around the same place that streets smell like death?
If there was greatness in anyland there would be no reason for crime. We can only strive for greatness so much when the stability we have achieved is in threat. We would rather have given all this resource spent on the war to developing countries to have the very type of running water instead of them drinking in their muddy baths. We rather would have spent it on media for world peace and humanity. We would've rather spent it on each peoples belifes are honored. If they want education wed rather give it to them, aswell as raising equality between deprived communities and developed communites within our own country.
If their belifes are educations evil, then we'd pay for it to remain so. But, when totalarians like sadam forces his belifes upon the nation, then we arent alowing each person to have their own belifes. When people are shot for speaking their mind then theres a problem.
We couldnt have spent this money that way, because the enemies would have killed us anyways. Theres people whom if they had 2 bombs 1 for tourture 1 for destruction, theres people who would use the torture on us.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 12:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
with this course of action we're making people angry like bort and those who have potential to send pain.
If we didnt take this route, then the people who were already angry would try to take us out. You realize, theres a chaance you and your families could have died had we not moved in? You dont see.. the great possibility of this. Lets seen, NewYork.. Threat of 2 more attacks.. Why are you Borts taking your ability to have lives for granted?
Celfious, I live in New York City. The middle of Manhattan. I know very well the risk of terrorism. Don't you dare try to use New Yorkers as an excuse for the war in Iraq without asking us first. The only thing the Iraq war has accomplished in the fight against terrorism is its taken troops that should be in Afghanistan looking for Osama and the rest of his cronies and dumped them in Iraq to look for weapons that aren't there and created the best recruitment videos that Al Qaeda could possibly hope for. The war in Iraq has not decreased the risk of terrorist attacks. If anything, it's increased them. And it's my family, my friends and myself who are the targets, so don't you DARE try to say I take my ability to have a life for granted.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 12:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
3.) The United States went to war with afghanistan without it even being voted on by the UN. Later, when the UN DID vote, the majority was opposing the war.
4.) If another country went to war without voting in the UN, we would have taken direct action. If something doesnt go the United State's way, we MAKE it go our way. The US is a bully.
The United States can pretty much do whatever it wants (within reason) without the fear of military retaliation. At this point in time, that is just the way things go. Russia is no longer there to keep the U.S. in check, and until China becomes a super power or there is a strong, united Europe (i.e. European Union), the United States has no deterents, except the voices of its own people. There is some good discussion about this in The Euro-American War thread in regards to this.
Other country's protesting the United States actions have an effect on the way that United States citizens view their own country; however, short of a threat of miltary action against the United States or another civil war, IMHO, the U.S. can pretty much choose its own path. Since this is the case, I am not sure how the United Nations will proceed from this point forward, as the U.S. was one of the strongest supporters of the U.N. prior to the war in Iraq. I hope that the United Nations re-groups and can maintain a sense of balance, order, and power after the current state of affairs.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 12:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
He had a weapons program, every government in the world acknowledges it.
Yes. But you will hardly find a democratic gouvernment in the world that acknowledges your right to attack a country because it has "a weapons program". That´s where the fabricated evidences come into play.
Quote:
And most of the killings Saddam did, were happening during the Clinton administration...
In the 80s, your ally Saddam Hussein gassed the kurds.
Even if he did such a thing during the time of the Clinton administration, which of course he didn´t, your argument would be of zero relevance because unlike Rumsfeld, Clinton has never been shaking hands with and giving weapons to Saddam Hussein.
Quote:
I'm sorry, I'd rather take out the man that wants to do me harm and more than likely has the capabilities to do such
Yes, I would feel sorry too, if I had to defend a war of aggression with likelihood-of-capabilities-to-do-harm arguments.
____________
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 12:51 AM |
|
|
ok bort is just anti bush. My bad. But I will use the terrorist attack as the reason for us going in after terrorists.
I didnt read a book on modern reasons and causes but I know the detail that sent all of us in that entire region is a terrorist attack that occoured. Why dont you debate me instead of finding discrediting things to elicit emotional suport for your argument? Or to directly attack the credibility of me because my thought process is unlike ya'lls (meaning the way I type can be non understood) or things like that.
The way you start a debate is telling me how your the one who is right about things in this country. I mean, you are with the percentage that dosnt support bush so what is it about that the other percentage (supporters) is wrong? I mean, how are you so sure? You must know the canadite that would bring success to this world. Your awsome. But I wanna know how you know your right. I wanna see material that in no way can have anyone say you might be wrong aka no contraversial potential.
If you knew the intentions of my words you wouldnt take emotional pains.. i might add.. and besides, your the one who turned what i said into a bad looking thing not me. Those are your words and dont you lol dare putting them into my mouth without asking me first.
I'll re-illiterate for you before you shove your foot in your mouth again.
"lets see, new york, threats of 2 more attacks"
I guess to keep things as intended ill rephraze.
1 terrorist attack, and threats of 2 more. How can you people not realize the fact, that our lives were in danger? I mean, we had to do something and we did but if we stop before peace negotiations we very well may die. The reason we shouldn't take this for granted and give them the benifit of a doubt, is because they are planning to give more attacks unless they seriously dont care about there threat of 2 more.
Quote:
Yes. But you will hardly find a democratic government in the world that acknowledges your right to attack a country because it has "a weapons program". That´s where the fabricated evidences come into play.
Yes but we didnt attack the SIIMply because they have a weapons plan. If we attack someone, more or less theres no chance they didnt have a weapons plan or weapons.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 01:08 AM |
|
|
Celfious, I do not know what you´re trying to tell me. Maybe it´s because I´m lacking practice, as I usually do not read your postings.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 01:22 AM |
|
|
Tax snows
I will restrain from any in-depth comments about the war in Iraq, since this has been so much discussed and some people still can't see the real situation. And I can't pour them brain by force in their heads if they don't want to. I just can't believe how can there still exist so many people in USA who believe the war in Iraq is just.
Quote:
Since this is the case, I am not sure how the United Nations will proceed from this point forward, as the U.S. was one of the strongest supporters of the U.N. prior to the war in Iraq. I hope that the United Nations re-groups and can maintain a sense of balance, order, and power after the current state of affairs.
The UN are nothing. They are just a mishaped figure, a tool in the hands of powerful countries (if they can possibly agree on something that is) and they haven't had a single successful mission in their entire history. EU and new world powers are totally different thing, but this is not the place for discussion like that.
Quote:
5.) The most successful nations- Rome, Nazi Germany, Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, Britian, Medieval France...you want to know what they all had in common? Totalitarian rule. Sure, it all came to an end. Has anyone ever accomplished anything spectacular in a democracy??
Watch your tongue, boy. You're not only giving false historical facts here, but you're also advocating totalitarian regimes, which is something totally unnacceptable.
And now some disgression to the debate. (Can't get enough of Iraq, can you?!)
Trying to push the argument about the tax cuts in favor of Bush is totally absurd. I can’t let that go unanswered, since most of the ‘less-educated’ ones (as you say) let lame explanations like that alter their views on Bush’s policy. With all due respect to that professor, but it is clear as day that it’s propaganda at work here.
As pietjel pointed out, it is the majority of people that base their political voting decisions on populist false interpretations of political issues (such as the one khayman posted) and TV shows.
First of all, what the college professor in the manner of Goebbels, fails to mention is that there aren’t only 10 men, of which one is millionaire and the rest fall in-between, but there are more like 100, of which only one is the millionaire, and many more of them fall in the groups with lowest incomes. Second, his percentage distribution is totally off any reasonable real life evidence. Come on, do you really think that if the relief for the poor was really 33%, and for the richest 16%, anyone would have anything against it?! And in the end, he so bluntly concludes that without the tax cuts for the rich, they would stop paying and move their businesses to Europe!
Now, I did some research in order to provide some of you Bush supporters with the real nature of Bush tax cuts, not some kid game about restaurants and hamburgers.
“Approximately half of the $364 billion will go to the top one percent of Americans, those with incomes of $350,000 a year or more. Some 65 percent will go to the top ten percent. The bottom 80 percent of the population, in income terms, gets less than 10 percent of the tax break.
According to the calculations of the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, people with incomes over $316,895 will save an average of $13,243 on their taxes. People earning $21,350 will save an average of $47—less than $5 a year.
According to one study, 64 percent of the benefits from moving up the tax rate cuts scheduled for 2004 will go to the wealthiest 5 percent of the population, while only 7.7 percent goes to the bottom 80 percent. 70 percent of the benefits from accelerating the planned 2006 tax cuts will go to the top 5 percent of taxpayers, and only 6.4 percent to the lowest four-fifths. Only the increase in the child tax credit provides the bulk of its benefits to middle-income families.
Bush also called on Congress to make permanent the $1.35 trillion in tax cuts enacted in 2001, now scheduled to expire in 2010. This would include permanent abolition of the estate tax, which affects only those who inherit estates of $1 million or more.”
I hope these numbers are not incomprehensible for the “less-educated” here. To further simplicate matters, Bush allows the richest to have more money at the expense of the federal budget. And the purpose of the federal budget is to finance spending on social services, health, education etc. (and unfortunately at the same time wars) And all these (except the war) are directly aimed to bring some of the surplus value of production back to the working classes, the ordinary happy American nuclear family.
Without the tax assets, the government has two resorts:
One, to borrow money and increase the national debt, in order to keep the social programs going.
Two, to reduce and eliminate social programs.
If you find these options appealing, then you and Bush can go “someplace” and do “something”, but I’m sure that if the American public was well informed and their minds not polluted by right-wing propaganda, they wouldn’t have support Bush tax cuts.
And now, I’d ask about a totally different thing. Khaelo, could you please explain to me in short terms what is the President election process in the US like? I’ve always thought that voters from all states are sort of lumped together in one voting body and the winner is declared by the shear majority number of ballots. But this discussion doesn’t seem to confirm that.
And I think this is the best way, because after all you are voting for a President on a federal level, not local government. So I can see no reason for any state division as Celf mumbles about.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 01:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Celfious, I do not know what you´re trying to tell me. Maybe it´s because I´m lacking practice, as I usually do not read your postings.
Or some other reason..
Quote:
Lews: Yes. But you will hardly find a democratic government in the world that acknowledges your right to attack a country because it has "a weapons program". That´s where the fabricated evidences come into play.
Celfious: Yes but we didnt attack them SIIMply because they have a weapons plan. If we attack someone, more or less theres no chance they didnt have a weapons plan or weapons.
We didnt attack anyone BECAUSE they have a weapons program did we?
I mean, even so that would be a twist of words. There would be more reasons than that
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 01:33 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 11 May 2004
|
After further reading of your posts
Quote:
The way you start a debate is telling me how your the one who is right about things in this country. I mean, you are with the percentage that dosnt support bush so what is it about that the other percentage (supporters) is wrong? I mean, how are you so sure?
I'll just quote myself from my previous post about this one.
"As pietjel pointed out, it is the majority of people that base their political voting decisions on populist false interpretations of political issues (such as the one khayman posted) and TV shows."
Quote:
I doubt there are many things we [US] intervend in that we shouldnt have.
I don't know if I should laugh or cry now.
Quote:
The United States can pretty much do whatever it wants (within reason) without the fear of military retaliation. At this point in time, that is just the way things go. Russia is no longer there to keep the U.S. in check, and until China becomes a super power or there is a strong, united Europe (i.e. European Union), the United States has no deterents, except the voices of its own people.
And those people with their failiure to influence their government not to do atrocities all around the globe, are the reason why USA was attacked by terrorists.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 01:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The ** are nothing. They are just a mishaped figure, a tool in the hands of powerful countries.
I dunno, people would want that reworded the way you want it to sound.. Unless it sounds like the way you mean.
And can you edit your last post with all the things we intervened that we shouldn't have? If you can think of 5 or 10 real quick then I thought wrong as i stated possible with the notorious phraze "i think". I'd rather all of this be in the 20th century.
I dont suport nixon (that era of presidency) and vietnam, nor do I know all the reasons and causes of that war. Technicly i could be wrong but in anycase I agree that Nixon was wrong in his methods of intervention. I dont know if vietnam was about liberation sorry.
____________
What are you up to
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
