If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2657
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7420 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2657 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | » | Last
 
  2008-09-01 04:26:33 PM
Sorry for breaking a rule just looked it up and realized might of broken one so appologizing in advance
 
  2008-09-01 10:11:14 PM
Wow Lawrence Vegas, what an idiotic comment....
 
  2008-09-02 09:19:11 AM
dottedmint: Considering he was bribing members of the UN to try to get the sanctions lifted and considering he was trying to rebuild his military who knows what exactly Saddam would be doing now.

For some strange reason I doubt that he would be promoting freedom and liberty in Iraq and the mid-east.


My guess would be sitting in a castle built on 1980's technology, fuming at his inability to do anything.

And for the record, we aren't exactly promoting freedom or liberty in Iraq either. Just a government that is closer aligned to our requests.
 
  2008-09-02 09:50:54 PM
tdyak "And for the record, we aren't exactly promoting freedom or liberty in Iraq either."

You are kidding right????

How many elections have there been since we got rid of Saddam?

How much more could we be promoting freedom and liberty in Iraq????

I mean really....

What are we not doing that we should?
 
  2008-09-03 11:41:04 AM
dottedmint: tdyak "And for the record, we aren't exactly promoting freedom or liberty in Iraq either."

You are kidding right????

How many elections have there been since we got rid of Saddam?

How much more could we be promoting freedom and liberty in Iraq????

I mean really....

What are we not doing that we should?


They held elections in Iraq when Saddam was there.

Let's see: Removing Imposed Curfews, Not building fortresses in Iraq for a prolonged stay (Look at our embassy there. It's a foothold), installing a pro-U.S. government and not letting their people choose.
 
  2008-09-03 12:35:07 PM
dottedmint: How much more could we be promoting freedom and liberty in Iraq????

I mean really....

What are we not doing that we should?


Getting out.

Hey, you walked right into that one. :)
 
  2008-09-03 10:23:13 PM
whidbey "Getting out."

I guess you have not been paying attention Whidbey because we are taking steps so that we can get out.

And for the record, how much "freedom and liberty" would there be if we left TOO soon and Al Quada over threw the government?

There is more "freedom and liberty" now in Iraq than there was when Saddam was in power.

There are people who would like to see things go back to the way they were when Saddam was in power.

We have the choice of either doing everything that we can to try to make sure that "freedom and liberty" is secure [including staying as long as we need] OR we can pull out and rely on 'hope and change' that Al Quada won't take over Iraq.
 
  2008-09-04 09:32:48 AM
dottedmint: There are people who would like to see things go back to the way they were when Saddam was in power.

Like the people who want running water and electricity?

3,800 more troops deploying for a year. The U.S. is planning to have a long-term military presence in Iraq to ensure the pro-U.S. government stays in power.

Iraq can have all the elections, freedom and liberty that they want, but none of it matters. There is no power to do anything that the U.S. does not permit.

Since 2007, the installed government has asked the U.S. to leave.
 
  2008-09-04 02:23:22 PM
so i think the GOP strategy this year is to humiliate Obama and the dems, i think their tactics will be 1) experience, that while Palin isn't very experiences that her's is a better experience (a quality argument, and an opinionated one), and that McCain's experiences cannot be topped and he's the presidential candidate not Palin... 2) judgment, they'll ignore McCain's and Palin's mistakes and go after Obama's and Biden's, look for another "flip flop" election, also they'll attack Obama and Biden as pacifist and weak in an age when Russia and China are trying to "take over the world's wealth"... 3) they will attempt a culture war between rural vs urban with Obama as the centerpiece of the dems' "urban elite" and will tout out Rev. Wright, Michelle Obama's remarks, and Obama's "bitter" remarks, Palin was chosen for this reason because she was a mayor of a small town while Obama and Biden are from "big wig" or "out of touch" areas, they're already making headway with the pro-life vs pro-choice issue... 4) they will target character, and try to paint Obama as an elitist cosmopolitan out of touch and aloof, and point to his campaign's very real flip flops on issues like campaign finance to say he has no substance or as Guiliani said "the guy has never led anything"

all of these are statements of quality

the GOP's statement that this election is about personalities and not issues is exactly what their campaign is about - pointing out flaws not with facts but with soundbites that damage the other person's character and standing without having to prove anything, and there's more to it than just that, the right wing/conservatives in this country have been split for several years now, some went independent, some went democrat, but there still exists the hardcore 29% who are aching to get "revenge" on the democrats, their perspective is completely different from ours and will view the war in Iraq as a success and the economy as a cycle and not their fault... the constant trouncing of their party has built up some anger within the party which is already showing, and Palin will be used to rally the party and to focus the 29% on the issues i outlined 1), 2), 3), 4)... the way they see it they can still win back all the people that voted for Bush in 2004, but to them it's also an opportunity to take the piss out of the Obama campaign and the dems and do to them what they did to Bush and the republicans, i don't think they want to lose, although i don't think they honestly think they're going to win either, but rather instead hope to position their two candidates as "unattackable" and use this to totally deflate the democrats and their hopes to gain more senate/house seats

it's like an animal you force it into a corner and it'll start getting more extreme... i'm not sure if they'll connect with voters and win, but still think they're dangerous politically and that's exactly where they want to be
 
  2008-09-04 04:28:49 PM
AdamK: big long post

Of course, the Republican party could be throwing a curve-ball by letting a prominent member retire as a presidential hopeful, ensuring he has a nice retirement package of speaking engagements and book deals.

Use Palin as a way to find and mark the best muckrakers the Democrats and Media have (keep a record of all people flying into Alaska, shorten the list). Then start to dismantle that force before the next major election.

The next four years are going to be hard, and what better way to ensure the Republican return to power than letting the Democrat party take responsibility for the hard years. This could be a great strategy to throw the election.

/Of course, you know what I'm full of.
 
  2008-09-04 06:12:52 PM
dottedmint: I guess you have not been paying attention Whidbey because we are taking steps so that we can get out.

Yeah. If you believe that.

We'd be crazy to do that, though, so I don't. Despite what you hear, there will be bases there for at least ten years and we will have an undue influence on that government. In other words, it's a puppet of the United States.

It's not really democracy, or there'd be a much stronger Shiite presence in the government. Which we don't want. Never mind it's what the people want. Never mind that it's what they've been fighting for.

It's just the "wrong" kind of democracy, so we have to stick around until it's just the way we want. Which might take a while.

There is more "freedom and liberty" now in Iraq than there was when Saddam was in power.


Not while the US is there.

There are people who would like to see things go back to the way they were when Saddam was in power.

And the US is squarely in the way of allowing the native population to deal with that. In fact, the US has been working with them (the Sunnis) to fight the Shiites. That's right. The US took the side of the former Saddam yesmen instead of the side of the people interested in democracy.

But don't let the facts get in the way about your delusions about Iraq.

dottedmint: OR we can pull out and rely on 'hope and change' that Al Quada won't take over Iraq.

"Al Qaeda taking over Iraq" is the lie the Bush administration uses to keep us there, the biggest one.

The truth is that there are people in Iraq interested in forming a democracy, and the US is working against it.

How do you reconcile that kind of hypocrisy? Land of the Free?

No. It's more of a "Do what we say" mentality.
 
  2008-09-04 06:24:11 PM
tdyak "They held elections in Iraq when Saddam was there."

Your serious????

If you tried to run against Saddam you could find yourself being fed through a wood chipper.


"Let's see: Removing Imposed Curfews, Not building fortresses in Iraq for a prolonged stay (Look at our embassy there. It's a foothold), installing a pro-U.S. government and not letting their people choose."

Considering that it is still [to a degree] a war zone a curfew can be important for saftey.

And for the record most of Iraq does not even have curfew anymore except for when attacks happen.

I actually don't think ANY of Iraq has a standing curfew at this point.

And how many governments have an embassy in the US????

I suppose that means that we should kick all of them out.

And YES, the people are choosing.

That's what the [REAL] elections are for.

"Like the people who want running water and electricity?"

No...

I was kinda thinking of the people who would intentionally kill innocent women and children, the people who would blow up water and electrical supplies, the people who want as many innocent lives to be lost as possible...

You know....

Those people.

"The U.S. is planning to have a long-term military presence in Iraq to ensure the pro-U.S. government stays in power."

Right???

We have had a military presence in Japan and Germany since the end of WWII.

what's your point?

"Iraq can have all the elections, freedom and liberty that they want, but none of it matters. There is no power to do anything that the U.S. does not permit."

OH....

So we should allow the Iraqi government to remove freedom and liberty from the Iraqi people?

We should allow political and religious freedoms to be taken away?



"Since 2007, the installed government has asked the U.S. to leave."

Um....


The Iraqi and US government are working on an agreement where US troops would leave by 2011.
 
  2008-09-05 10:57:46 AM
tdyak: AdamK: big long post

Of course, the Republican party could be throwing a curve-ball by letting a prominent member retire as a presidential hopeful, ensuring he has a nice retirement package of speaking engagements and book deals.

Use Palin as a way to find and mark the best muckrakers the Democrats and Media have (keep a record of all people flying into Alaska, shorten the list). Then start to dismantle that force before the next major election.

The next four years are going to be hard, and what better way to ensure the Republican return to power than letting the Democrat party take responsibility for the hard years. This could be a great strategy to throw the election.

/Of course, you know what I'm full of.


aw c'mon now, they're republicans, they love to win as much as we do, and aren't bound by any outstanding morals or limitations because they see it like a football game from the perspective of mike tyson

although after last night's speech i somehow doubt that the republican machine is taking McCain's "we failed" words to heart, if he got elected they really would treat him as a figurehead and not the decision maker

really McCain should've run as an independent or a democrat, the only way to "reform" your own party is to have it leave the whitehouse for at least 4 years
 
  2008-09-05 12:45:28 PM
dottedmint One more thing to feed the troll with (I'm away from the compy for a few days): The U.S. helped install Saddam and supported him. Should he still be in power? No, but the way we went about removing him from power not only set a bad precedent, but also put the U.S. in the middle of a power vacuum without something to fill the gap.

AdamK - agreed on McCain.
 
  2008-09-05 01:08:30 PM
We used to argue it here for weeks on end, tydak...

dottedmint is an honest to goodness 20%-er. We should all chip in and open a museum in his honor...;)
 
  2008-09-06 09:43:44 AM
tdyak "Should he still be in power? No, but the way we went about removing him from power not only set a bad precedent, but also put the U.S. in the middle of a power vacuum without something to fill the gap."

So you agree that Saddam should not still be in power.

OK... How would you have removed him then?

Also, one of the reasons that we are there is to help fill that vacuum.

As the Iraqi government is getting stronger, they are filling more and more of that vacuum and we are filling less and less.

whidbey "dottedmint is an honest to goodness 20%-er."

I don't think I have ever heard that term before Whidbey.

Can you explain what you mean by "20%-er"?

And for the record, I don't think I need a whole museum in my horor, maybe just one wing of a museum....

lol...
 
  2008-09-06 05:32:18 PM
dottedmint: whidbey "dottedmint is an honest to goodness 20%-er."

I don't think I have ever heard that term before Whidbey.

Can you explain what you mean by "20%-er"?


He was referencing the people that still think Bush is doing a good job. His aproval rating has never droped below 20% (I don't think it has, if it has oh well ya'll get the point). This is meant to discribe a hardcore republican uber partisan (whidbey correct me if I am wrong on this).
 
  2008-09-11 05:36:54 AM
Wasn't this region of the middle east on the brink of some huge water war before all this invasion talk kicked off? I mean, I'm not sure, I just lived and breathed current events in the Middle East because I was a subject matter expert, so some of you might have a better grasp of it then I do. I just thought Turkey was about to Dam the Euphrates and piss off the Iraqis and the Syrians (and the rest of the Arab nations might have helped out). Thats what it was looking like at the time anyway. Haven't heard too much about that though. Last time I visited it the Euphrates was still flowing pretty well (if with an unpleasant odor).

To back up tydak talking about the pre-OIF Iraqi elections:
Saddam won everyone of those fairly. By 103%. No, seriously, in some cases he won by over 100%. It wasn't until the latter part of the 20th century that he started throwing the opposition small numbers, and then it appeared to be mostly for the sake of appearances.
 
  2008-09-12 04:11:36 PM
McCain's choice of VP is an interesting contrast to Bush-41 and Bush-43. 41 chose a doofus most people thought would be totally incompetent, and proved it by misspelling potato. 43 chose Dr. Evil. In both cases it was postulated that the choice was like a bullet-proof shield. Who would consider assassinating the President if they knew the new President would be Quayle or Cheney? Now we come to McCain. Do you think he really thought this through? Now I don't think that that the people who support Palin have murder on their minds (though they seem to be well armed), but they no doubt wouldn't mind if old Johnny, for some unforseen reason, couldn't finish his term. Do you think there might be prayer vigils prior the McCain's annual physical? Could there be supplications for a positive biopsy? I don't think this is a good choice for him.
 
  2008-09-12 07:09:50 PM
Maturin: I don't think this is a good choice for him.

That's not what the polls are saying.

img143.imageshack.us

I've honestly got to ask myself just WTH is wrong with you so-called 52%?

What are you thinking? Do you really see progress in a McCain/Palin administration?
 
  2008-09-12 11:11:23 PM
whidbey
Yes, you are right the polls show that Palin has helped his campaign. My question is whether he wants to have a few million evangelists beseeching heaven for his timely demise. We may learn a lesson regarding the power of prayer.
 
  2008-09-13 09:44:24 AM
That's an interesting thought Maturin...

Do you honestly think that "a few million evangelists" are going to be praying that McCain actually dies????

For some strange reason I think it is more likely that they would pray that McCain does a good job as President or that God bless him and guide him.

I think the odds of the religious praying for McCain to die is somewhere between slim and none.
 
  2008-09-13 09:29:23 PM
First, my apologies. I did not mean to offend the evangelists. I meant to offend the evangelicals. I'm mostly being glib and facetious. I truly doubt that there will be many people praying for McCain's health to deteriorate.

I do think, however, that there are some people who feel that they are so tuned in to what they believe God wants that they will find it to be divine providence if McCain develops metastatic melanoma. I have seen Fred Phelps and his nutjob family picketing the streets of Topeka with signs that were so vile I felt a need to cover the eyes of my children. They are deliberately offensive, spewing hate and obscenities, yet they believe they are doing holy work. We have more than a few religious zealots out there who believe that every American soldier killed in Iraq is retribution for not stoning homosexuals. Is it so hard to believe that there are some who see Palin's elevation from obscurity to second in line to the presidency as the Hand of God (cue the harps)?

Any person of faith should pray for their leader. In my church (Anglican) we do so every Sunday. And though I believe Bush-43 to be THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER, I pray that he will remain in good health (or at least that Cheney goes first).
 
  2008-09-14 08:49:50 AM
Maturin "Is it so hard to believe that there are some who see Palin's elevation from obscurity to second in line to the presidency as the Hand of God (cue the harps)? "

Well, since Palin does not hold the same views as Phelps I don't think he or his followers would be happy with her either.

Also, (for the record) Phelps and his followers do not represent the majority of faithful.

And while there are nutjobs on the right (such as Phelps) there are also nutjobs on the left who hope (IF they don't pray) that Bush dies and would be hoping that McCain and Palin die.
 
  2008-09-14 03:16:54 PM
I did not suggest that Phelps shares Palin's beliefs. Only that some people go to extremes in their expression of their beliefs. I suspect that there are many Christians, however, who would hold that if McCain were to die in office and Palin ascend to the presidency that it would reflect divine providence.

Now I ask you, if you had lived during WW II, would you have prayed for the death of Hitler? I for one think I would have. Same for Stalin. There are almost certainly people who are praying for Fidel Castro's death. It is a debate that is alive today. (http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=13078)

What I find interesting about Palin's nomination is the transformation I have seen in local Republicans. I live in a very conservative town, and most of them supported Huckabee. When McCain won, they seemed demoralized. Now they are ready to hop and his bandwagon. I don't know if they feel that this means McCain has changed his political stripes, or that they think Palin will transform his views. Personally, (and I am a McCain admirer, at least until the campaign started to get so dirty) I find it hard to believe that he will change his views because of Palin. He doesn't seem that easily swayed, and I don't think that she will have the influence Cheney had on Bush-43. Sarah Palin is not Dick Cheney in drag. So if she is VP, and McCain does the unthinkable by compromising with the Democrats in control of Congress, (as he will have to do if he wants to get anything done) then I think some of religious wing of the Republican party will begin to think dour thoughts about him.
 
  2008-09-14 05:38:28 PM
"Only that some people go to extremes in their expression of their beliefs."

And that does go for people on both the right and the left.

There are people on the right that go to extremes.

There are people on the left that go to extremes.

"I suspect that there are many Christians, however, who would hold that if McCain were to die in office and Palin ascend to the presidency that it would reflect divine providence."

And I suspect that the number of people who would have that view would be a very small number.

And for the record we have no way of knowing how much of an influence Palin would have in a McCain WH.

Personally I would NOT underestimate how much of a role she could have.

I was basically taking issue with the idea that anything more than a minute percentage of people would be praying for McCain to die.

And I hope you are not saying that praying for the death of Hitler is somehow the same as praying for the death of McCain.
 
  2008-09-16 05:15:03 PM
dottedmint: And for the record we have no way of knowing how much of an influence Palin would have in a McCain WH.

Personally I would NOT underestimate how much of a role she could have.


Not after Cheney anyway. He set the New Bar.

Depends on the President. I don't see McCain telling Palin to keep quiet. He knows that he's washed up, and she's the fresh blood in the party. The fresh NEOCON blood of the party, no less.
 
  2008-09-17 06:37:23 PM
Maturin: I did not suggest that Phelps shares Palin's beliefs. Only that some people go to extremes in their expression of their beliefs. I suspect that there are many Christians, however, who would hold that if McCain were to die in office and Palin ascend to the presidency that it would reflect divine providence.

Now I ask you, if you had lived during WW II, would you have prayed for the death of Hitler? I for one think I would have. Same for Stalin. There are almost certainly people who are praying for Fidel Castro's death. It is a debate that is alive today. (http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=13078)

What I find interesting about Palin's nomination is the transformation I have seen in local Republicans. I live in a very conservative town, and most of them supported Huckabee. When McCain won, they seemed demoralized. Now they are ready to hop and his bandwagon. I don't know if they feel that this means McCain has changed his political stripes, or that they think Palin will transform his views. Personally, (and I am a McCain admirer, at least until the campaign started to get so dirty) I find it hard to believe that he will change his views because of Palin. He doesn't seem that easily swayed, and I don't think that she will have the influence Cheney had on Bush-43. Sarah Palin is not Dick Cheney in drag. So if she is VP, and McCain does the unthinkable by compromising with the Democrats in control of Congress, (as he will have to do if he wants to get anything done) then I think some of religious wing of the Republican party will begin to think dour thoughts about him.


I've seen the same on the Left. Before the election, McCain was considered the most moderate of the republicans, and was generally thought rather well of by the left (for a republican, that is). Heck, there were even rumors that Kerry would choose him as running mate. Now, though, all of a sudden they're claiming he's going to be the same as Bush and wants to eat your babies. The whole thing is really ridiculous IMO.
 
  2008-09-17 06:51:25 PM
martianlunatic: I've seen the same on the Left. Before the election, McCain was considered the most moderate of the republicans, and was generally thought rather well of by the left (for a republican, that is).

Not really. We just didn't think he'd run again. We could have lived with his entrenched constipated career politician image.

Now, though, all of a sudden they're claiming he's going to be the same as Bush and wants to eat your babies.

No, not "all of a sudden." He's got two big things against him:

1. He voted for the "war" and has made no efforts to bring the troops home.
2. Since 2000 he has voted consistently for whatever Bush wanted.

And besides, he's not so much the focus of the Neocon agenda as Palin. He's along for the ride, she's the future they're banking on. And it's f*cking scary.
 
  2008-09-20 12:38:50 AM
So, now that we've screwed up what few things Iraq had going for it, we should just leave? Or should we abandon the whole project to the UN? What is the alternative to maintaining an active presence in Iraq?
 
  2008-09-20 01:25:55 AM
MegaCorpEmployee: So, now that we've screwed up what few things Iraq had going for it, we should just leave?

We should but we won't. The US doesn't want to leave. Iraq is one hell of a strategic location. We are building bases there. Doesn't look like leaving is in the plan.

Or should we abandon the whole project to the UN? What is the alternative to maintaining an active presence in Iraq?

Polls show that a majority of Americans want the UN to take the lead in Iraq and Iran, which would imply they want the UN to have a bigger role in resolving crises.
 
  2008-09-20 01:36:08 AM
have you seen the effects that turning areas over to the UN has on that region? In parts of West Africa you can't hire people to work for you because they live so well off of UN handouts.

A majority of Americans want to live beyond their means and bury themselves in debt. They are obviously the ones to be listened to when it comes to taking responsibility for your actions (in this case, as a government).

The UN has too many checks and balances to get anything done, and with a hostile Russia on the security council, how well do you think the whole situation will play out?

It is quite a strategic location. Is that a reason that we should leave?
 
  2008-09-20 02:44:06 AM
MegaCorpEmployee: have you seen the effects that turning areas over to the UN has on that region? In parts of West Africa you can't hire people to work for you because they live so well off of UN handouts.

Maybe because the regular employment sucks? Who could blame them? It's probably some transnational paying peanuts.


The UN has too many checks and balances to get anything done, and with a hostile Russia on the security council, how well do you think the whole situation will play out?


Russia isn't any more hostile than we are. After all, we veto, we threaten, we walk out altogether. We pretty much call the shots.

It is quite a strategic location. Is that a reason that we should leave?

We don't belong there. How would you like it if some other country decided they thought the US was a "strategic location" and they put all their muscle in trying to control our resources?

Iraqis are the ones most qualified to be the ones solving Iraq's problems, not us. We've screwed it up majorly, proving what a failure we are when we act unilaterally and in no one's interest but ours.



We are the reason nothing gets done there.
 
  2008-09-20 10:27:22 PM
Once again, the UN would be better? With their serial raping, child molesting, sex slave trading ways? And then there is the fact that most other countries have inept militaries.

If the US didn't make the noise, nothing would ever get done. The UN's response is slow to natural disasters, and paralyzed when it comes to security threats.

We have no intention of maintaining a puppet government in Iraq, at least not any more than we did in Germany and Japan, despite our continued presence. At least it isn't like Iraq's previous regime tried to invade other countries to expand their power base. Or was led by a megalomaniacal dictator who believed in ethnic clensing.
 
  2008-09-20 11:42:47 PM
MegaCorpEmployee: Once again, the UN would be better? With their serial raping, child molesting, sex slave trading ways

Uh...what?

href="http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=5&IDComment=44589020#c4 4589020">MegaCorpEmployee:
If the US didn't make the noise, nothing would ever get done. The UN's response is slow to natural disasters, and paralyzed when it comes to security threats.

That's BS. We'd never know if anything would ever "get done" or not because the UN is constantly stumbling over the US. We behave more like an obstacle than an asset.

I'd like to see a source criticizing their natural disaster reaction time, I had not heard this.

As far as security threats go, the US tends to veto actions far more than it supports them. This has to change.


We have no intention of maintaining a puppet government in Iraq, at least not any more than we did in Germany and Japan, despite our continued presence.


We actually did install puppet governments in Europe, some of whom were ex-Nazis.

At least it isn't like Iraq's previous regime tried to invade other countries to expand their power base. Or was led by a megalomaniacal dictator who believed in ethnic clensing.

No, it's just a US-approved government that goes against the wishes of what the people in Iraq actually want. It's not democracy.

Not to mention that many many Iraqis have died because of our presence there, in numbers great enough to rival those killed during Saddam's reign, so things aren't exactly "better."
 
  2008-09-21 01:29:21 AM
I'm not sure how respected the Telegraph is but this article isn't the first I've heard about it. And two, they're incompetent.

Seriously, who observes the observers?

Didn't turning Germany into a free for all end poorly for us post WWI? You might question the morality with which our (US) government operates, but you should probably also understand that our government has more transparency than most (not enough), and that transparency helps to keep the government honest. Other countries won't be as honest.

I also can't help but notice how poorly Germany and Japan turned out. But you're right, they should probably have been looked after by the UN, who would never have highly placed officials involved in anything that wasn't completely legit.

So the thing about selling cheap oil to China and Jordan, thats what the US wants? I can't haz the cheap oilz?

And the Iraqis dying... is being killed accidently better or worse than being killed abitrarily. Saddam had a program in place. If he was unhappy, he would take out his pistol and kill someone at random, and then pay off that family (awfully nice of him, right?). These people killed in this way were referred to as Martyrs of AngerTM.
 
  2008-09-21 02:39:09 AM
MegaCorpEmployee: I'm not sure how respected the Telegraph is but this article isn't the first I've heard about it. And two, they're incompetent.

And three, that article is an appalling smear piece written by someone who clearly has it in for the UN by using whatever negative piece of "information" he can find.

Seriously, who observes the observers?

A few bad apples, it sounds like. Incidents that should be investigated. It's dishonest of you to paint that as the norm.

And it should go without saying that corruption should be addressed. This government doesn't care.

Didn't turning Germany into a free for all end poorly for us post WWI?

We didn't turn Germany into a "free for all" so I really don't know what you're talking about.

You might question the morality with which our (US) government operates, but you should probably also understand that our government has more transparency than most (not enough), and that transparency helps to keep the government honest.

I do question the morality of this government because I have a conscience, and this government does not have transparency. We often have to piece together what it's doing from sources buried somewhere deep in a newspaper or a policy journal.

This government is not honest, either. The only thing that inspires it to do the right thing is popular activism.

Other countries won't be as honest.

A bare assertion, and insulting to boot.

I also can't help but notice how poorly Germany and Japan turned out. But you're right, they should probably have been looked after by the UN, who would never have highly placed officials involved in anything that wasn't completely legit.

First of all, there wasn't a UN yet when we set up the reconstruction plans.

Secondly, so far all I'm seeing from your "arguments" is that they are long on the hate and short on the facts.

So the thing about selling cheap oil to China and Jordan, thats what the US wants? I can't haz the cheap oilz?

Whatever. Would you do the courtesy of elaborating?

And the Iraqis dying... is being killed accidently better or worse than being killed abitrarily. Saddam had a program in place. If he was unhappy, he would take out his pistol and kill someone at random, and then pay off that family (awfully nice of him, right?). These people killed in this way were referred to as Martyrs of AngerTM.

Saddam should have been overthrown either through efforts of his own people, or a full-blown UN operation. Not the klstrf*ck we're still suffering. The United States had no justification or the right to invade or occupy that country.

And there is nothing "accidental" about those Iraqi deaths. Our presence there has indirectly led to the deaths of perhaps millions. Because we were there. Bombing them and shooting them.

Lying to the American people about the reasons we went there makes this country's intentions suspect, no matter what Saddam did.
 
  2008-09-21 10:06:33 AM
All you need to do is Google "UN oil for food scandal" to see some of the corruption in the UN.

Also I have to say that much of what you write about the US seems like it (as you put it) is an appalling smear piece written by someone who clearly has it in for the UN [US] by using whatever negative piece of "information" he can find.

Is the US perfect?

NO. I never said it was but I am willing to argue that this country does far more good and is far more open than any country out there.

And has the UN expressed any interest in sending troops into Iraq to take over security?

"So the thing about selling cheap oil to China and Jordan, thats what the US wants? I can't haz the cheap oilz?"

"Whatever. Would you do the courtesy of elaborating?"


I think what he is getting at is that if Iraq was our "puppet" why wouldn't it be selling cheap oil to the US?

And there is nothing "accidental" about those Iraqi deaths. Our presence there has indirectly led to the deaths of perhaps millions. Because we were there. Bombing them and shooting them.

Most of the civilian deaths in Iraq were caused by the Saddam loyalists and Al Quada. We do not intentionally target civilians. Yes, mistakes do happen but unlike the other side we try to avoid innocent lives.
 
  2008-09-21 05:35:16 PM
dottedmint: Is the US perfect?

NO. I never said it was but I am willing to argue that this country does far more good and is far more open than any country out there.


I'm not condemning this country. But many of its actions, usually hypocritically carried out, ignoring principles we supposedly hold dear like "human rights" or "democracy."

You can't blame anyone for being outraged. The positives are overshadowed to the point where it's hard to defend what this government does.

I didn't know this information when I was younger, or I ignored it because we're all pretty much taught to ignore the bad stuff when we embrace pop culture.

Nonetheless, we can find example after example of this hypocrisy, while MCE's allegations of such crimes should be investigated and its perpetrators brought to justice, it's hardly the norm. Not to mention that in more than one instance, the abuses took place in countries that the United States has utterly devastated, like Haiti.



And has the UN expressed any interest in sending troops into Iraq to take over security?


There have been some resolutions passed in reaction to the US invasion, but the US has seen to keeping the the UN's political role weak, not surprisingly. There is some talk of expanding the UN's role, but it depends on if this government allows it to happen or not.

We set one heck of a precedent when we invaded. We ignored the world body of representation and did what we wanted anyway. We didn't need "authorization."

Imagine how scary that concept is to the rest of the world when you wonder why we're so heavily criticized and hated.

Most of the civilian deaths in Iraq were caused by the Saddam loyalists and Al Quada. We do not intentionally target civilians. Yes, mistakes do happen but unlike the other side we try to avoid innocent lives.

We bombed plenty of innocents, maybe not "intentionally," but where's our credibility to begin with? This was seen as an illegal operation.

Not to mention that the US doesn't count causalities or deaths on the other side, so the information is vague. We do know that many many died because of our presence there, whether we killed them or it was a result of insurgencies, friendly fire or terror.
 
  2008-09-21 09:11:08 PM
"There have been some resolutions passed in reaction to the US invasion, but the US has seen to keeping the the UN's political role weak, not surprisingly. There is some talk of expanding the UN's role, but it depends on if this government allows it to happen or not."

My point Whidbey is that I have not heard the UN say, "Enough! The UN is going to take over operations in Iraq and provide security, and coordinate the rebuilding of that country."

Have you?

Of course the UN was willing to pass the occasional resolution against Saddam but was unwilling to take action.

Has the UN EVER taken action against a dictator like Saddam????

They send in "peace keepers"...."observers"...but honestly do you think they would be a serious threat to Al Quada in Iraq?

How fast after the first UN official gets killed would they be pullling out?

"We ignored the world body of representation and did what we wanted anyway. We didn't need "authorization.""

Well... When Saddam is basically bribing members of the UN I wouldn't expect them to authorize actions.

"We do know that many many died because of our presence there, whether we killed them or it was a result of insurgencies, friendly fire or terror."

And if Saddam was still in power how many more people would have died in his prisons and torture rooms.

How many more moms and daughters would have been raped in front of their families?

And thinking about it....

I can't help but wonder how things would have been different if the UN had been in charge of removing Saddam.

For some reason I suspect Saddam would still be in power...

Or if he wasn't there would be even more innocent lives lost...
 
  2008-09-21 09:28:45 PM
whidbey: Whatever. Would you do the courtesy of elaborating?

Jordan (new window)

China (new window)

yeah, we're obviously taking all their oil for out benefit.


whidbey: There have been some resolutions passed in reaction to the US invasion, but the US has seen to keeping the the UN's political role weak, not surprisingly. There is some talk of expanding the UN's role, but it depends on if this government allows it to happen or not.

If you want an organization to get anything done, you can't have a controlling body like the Security Council where any nation can veto a vote. If all the nations had the same goal in mind, maybe then you could, but peoples of the various nations that make up the Security council have very different values, making unanimous agreement hard to come by.

whidbey: We bombed plenty of innocents, maybe not "intentionally," but where's our credibility to begin with? This was seen as an illegal operation.

There is actually a pretty clear distinction between intentional killings and accidental killings. We never try to kill civilians, even going to great lengths and exposing our soldiers to greater risk in order to protect the civilian population. The enemy murders civilians as a tool. And we're the one with the credibility issue?
 
  2008-09-21 11:57:11 PM
MegaCorpEmployee: yeah, we're obviously taking all their oil for out benefit.

I've never been of the mind that we went into Iraq to make off with a bunch of cheap oil. We are controlling the supply. Sure, oil gets sold out of Iraq, but you've got to go through the US to get it.MegaCorpEmployee: If you want an organization to get anything done, you can't have a controlling body like the Security Council where any nation can veto a vote. If all the nations had the same goal in mind, maybe then you could, but peoples of the various nations that make up the Security council have very different values, making unanimous agreement hard to come by.

Eliminating the power of veto would be such a rational step to take. But who's going to suggest that kind of limitation? We still hold the record for the most vetoes against resolutions, including many human rights resolutions because...they would have to apply to us and we'd have to get our act together.

I really hope people get active enough to demand that provision alone. Maybe in 2012?

There is actually a pretty clear distinction between intentional killings and accidental killings.

I'm sure there is. But it doesn't change what I said: that our initial action of invasion was the catalyst and the blood is on our hands for allowing it.

dottedmint:

My point Whidbey is that I have not heard the UN say, "Enough! The UN is going to take over operations in Iraq and provide security, and coordinate the rebuilding of that country."

Have you?

Of course the UN was willing to pass the occasional resolution against Saddam but was unwilling to take action.


Because we would have vetoed it. Our bad behavior at the UN in 2003 proved that we don't need any kind of "authorization." We would vote against any binding action that would limit US involvement from the area.

Has the UN EVER taken action against a dictator like Saddam????

The US has a long history of supporting dictators including Saddam. Usually they do what we say. Saddam didn't.

They send in "peace keepers"...."observers"...but honestly do you think they would be a serious threat to Al Quada in Iraq?

Seeing as how Al Qaeda showed up after we invaded there, it's ridiculous to speculate.

How fast after the first UN official gets killed would they be pullling out?

Depends on the severity of the situation. Personally, I think it would have been handled a lot better that there might not have been an insurgency if there had truly been an international presence and not just a joint US/UK venture. People do not trust the two countries acting alone.

When Saddam is basically bribing members of the UN I wouldn't expect them to authorize actions.

Even if that's true (I haven't seen any credible evidence of it), why didn't we confront the countries who were bribed? Those are serious allegations.

Aside from that, there was no resolution.

And if Saddam was still in power how many more people would have died in his prisons and torture rooms.

Not the point. Saddam was a bad man. The US behaved badly by showing up half-assedly into a sovereign nation, without authorization, and history will show that this country played a role in the deaths of perhaps a million or more Iraqis.

I can't help but wonder how things would have been different if the UN had been in charge of removing Saddam.

For some reason I suspect Saddam would still be in power...

Or if he wasn't there would be even more innocent lives lost...


You don't know, do you? Neither do I. Speculation is cheap.

Real facts, like the lives wasted, the billions put into contractors' coffers (with little to show for it), the general hopelessness and anarchy, suicide bombers, civil war, those things happened because of US.

If the power of veto were eliminated, and we were really serious about turning the UN into an organization that took the lead in crisis situations, then there would be a rebuilding force in Iraq, and the US's role would be primarily reparations. Flying unicorns, man...
 
  2008-09-25 03:15:15 AM
whidbey: Eliminating the power of veto would be such a rational step to take. But who's going to suggest that kind of limitation? We still hold the record for the most vetoes against resolutions, including many human rights resolutions because...they would have to apply to us and we'd have to get our act together.

I'm not sure, but I think Russia/USSR holds the record regarding number of vetoes. Granted, if you don't count them as a continuous entity, then you're right, we have used the veto most often.

Most of the time we've used the veto power has been to shield Israel from condemnation. In adherence to the Negreponte Doctrine, we will probably continue to shield Israel until the UN agrees to condemn the terrorist groups also operating in Israel.

We do try and protect our troops from trial in the ICC because our troops shouldn't be the ones paying the price because other nations disagree with American policies.

whidbey: I'm sure there is. But it doesn't change what I said: that our initial action of invasion was the catalyst and the blood is on our hands for allowing it.

And the blood of the dead that Saddam killed when we could have stopped him? Should we be on the hook for that too? Or the Sudanese? Should we have gone into the Sudan with as much force as we went into Iraq with? Because a whole bunch of ethnic cleansing is happening there. Or are we worried that the ensuing battle with insurgent forces will lead to the death of many more civilians? 'We might hurt some of them, so let's not get involved' doesn't seem like a solid foreign policy.

whidbey: Because we would have vetoed it. Our bad behavior at the UN in 2003 proved that we don't need any kind of "authorization." We would vote against any binding action that would limit US involvement from the area.

Single most important factor for increasing the UN role in Iraq is security. You know, the security provided by the McCain and Palin boys.

Perhaps that was a little dramatic, but yeah, we have folks out there who are both providing humanitarian support to the people of Iraq, and economic stimulus in the form of contracts for folks willing to work. While these guys are out doing this work, they provide their own security.

whidbey: The US has a long history of supporting dictators including Saddam. Usually they do what we say. Saddam didn't.

I would cut the US a little slack for using questionable tactics to limit the influence of the Soviet Union over the rest of the world. Regardless of whether or not you support socialist or communist ideals, you can't argue with the fact that the US, even in the worst periods of McCarthy-ism, was a better place to live that Soviet Russia.

whidbey: Depends on the severity of the situation. Personally, I think it would have been handled a lot better that there might not have been an insurgency if there had truly been an international presence and not just a joint US/UK venture. People do not trust the two countries acting alone.

It isn't really a matter of trusting the two countries involved. It is more the fact that the numerous foreign fighters and Al Queda folks that flooded into Iraq to fight us disliked us well before Bush took office. Something about working with the Zionists, being prosperous, and mostly, worshipping differently from them. In the process of fighting these people, we managed to alienate some Iraqis, and the rest are just tired and disallusioned. Even if they support the US, we can't protect them from backlash from the local insurgent cell. It really makes it much easier for them to support the insurgents, because the US military doesn't kill you for supporting the other side.

whidbey: Not the point. Saddam was a bad man. The US behaved badly by showing up half-assedly into a sovereign nation, without authorization, and history will show that this country played a role in the deaths of perhaps a million or more Iraqis.

The regime wasn't cooperating in the UN inspection program, and many of the actions they were taking seemed very suspicious, especially their lack of ability to provide documentation of the destruction of significant amounts of weapons.

2)and not nearly such a good point to argue - We killed more than a million Phillipinos by some counts, and history seems to have nearly forgotten about that.

whidbey: If the power of veto were eliminated, and we were really serious about turning the UN into an organization that took the lead in crisis situations, then there would be a rebuilding force in Iraq, and the US's role would be primarily reparations. Flying unicorns, man...

There is a rebuilding force in Iraq.

If the power of the Veto were eliminated, we could be forced into a number of situations that we don't like. 1) Exposing our troops to trial in the ICC
2)Interference in our commercial practices (think something in an effort to prevent the current financial crisis or requiring participation in the Kyoto protocol)
3)Interference with Capital punishment
4)Interference with non military weapon ownership, under the guise of decreasing the flow of weapons across our borders
5)Interference in our health insurance system (requiring developed nations to have universal health care)

While not Isolationists, we, as a nation, are not Internationalists, or Eurocentric, or even too concerned about the opinion of other nations when it comes to governing ourselves.
 
  2008-09-25 01:31:32 PM
MegaCorpEmployee: whidbey: Eliminating the power of veto would be such a rational step to take. But who's going to suggest that kind of limitation? We still hold the record for the most vetoes against resolutions, including many human rights resolutions because...they would have to apply to us and we'd have to get our act together.

I'm not sure, but I think Russia/USSR holds the record regarding number of vetoes. Granted, if you don't count them as a continuous entity, then you're right, we have used the veto most often.


I was not aware of that. However this source, a Google from The UN Security Council by Canadian diplomat David Malone breaks the figure down to where the US and Russia are nearly equal, and that the US has used its veto power more significantly since 1970, while the Russians had their heyday before that.

Most of the time we've used the veto power has been to shield Israel from condemnation. In adherence to the Negreponte Doctrine, we will probably continue to shield Israel until the UN agrees to condemn the terrorist groups also operating in Israel.

There are obviously two stories to that. The other side is that Israel acts aggressively and the US protects any UN actions against it by vetoing the resolutions, many of which condemn Israel's human rights violations and illegal invasions/attacks.

Vetoing these resolutions only reinforces the notion that we don't care what the international community thinks.

We do try and protect our troops from trial in the ICC because our troops shouldn't be the ones paying the price because other nations disagree with American policies.

The bigger responsibility is becoming a country that doesn't get on the ICC's radar, I would think, but you're right in that the US does not recognize that authority because we would indeed be charged for some of our actions.

whidbey: I'm sure there is. But it doesn't change what I said: that our initial action of invasion was the catalyst and the blood is on our hands for allowing it.

And the blood of the dead that Saddam killed when we could have stopped him? Should we be on the hook for that too? Or the Sudanese? Should we have gone into the Sudan with as much force as we went into Iraq with? Because a whole bunch of ethnic cleansing is happening there. Or are we worried that the ensuing battle with insurgent forces will lead to the death of many more civilians? 'We might hurt some of them, so let's not get involved' doesn't seem like a solid foreign policy.


My issue was that the US had no justification to invade based on the UN Charter, which we are beholden to through treaty, and the supreme law of the land that binds us to that treaty, the US Constitution.

And there really is no argument that our presence there caused that many deaths. You either accept it, or you don't.

whidbey: Because we would have vetoed it. Our bad behavior at the UN in 2003 proved that we don't need any kind of "authorization." We would vote against any binding action that would limit US involvement from the area.

Single most important factor for increasing the UN role in Iraq is security. You know, the security provided by the McCain and Palin boys.


Half-assed security. The government has run out of steam trying to paint Iraq as a victory. Most Americans want out of there.

Perhaps that was a little dramatic, but yeah, we have folks out there who are both providing humanitarian support to the people of Iraq, and economic stimulus in the form of contracts for folks willing to work. While these guys are out doing this work, they provide their own security.

We need to get out of there and let Iraq handle its own problems. It's insulting to continue to pretend that there is any competency over there at all.

whidbey: The US has a long history of supporting dictators including Saddam. Usually they do what we say. Saddam didn't.

I would cut the US a little slack for using questionable tactics to limit the influence of the Soviet Union over the rest of the world. Regardless of whether or not you support socialist or communist ideals, you can't argue with the fact that the US, even in the worst periods of McCarthy-ism, was a better place to live that Soviet Russia.


Propaganda. The Cold war was the 1950s-1980s version of the War on Terror, in fact Reagan called the atrocities this government leveled against Central America as "the War on Terror."

You can believe all that BS about the Soviets taking over, but we overthrew democratically-elected governments, turned citizenry against one another and installed and supported brutal dictators (often with taxpayer dollars).

Once we kill innocents and impede democracy, this country takes a tremendous dive in terms of credibility, so no, that little fable about "stopping Communism" is very threadbare, especially in hindsight.

whidbey: Depends on the severity of the situation. Personally, I think it would have been handled a lot better that there might not have been an insurgency if there had truly been an international presence and not just a joint US/UK venture. People do not trust the two countries acting alone.

It isn't really a matter of trusting the two countries involved. It is more the fact that the numerous foreign fighters and Al Queda folks that flooded into Iraq to fight us disliked us well before Bush took office.


I'm sure the US bombing of Afghanistan was a unintended shot in the arm. Not to mention their real grievances: that the US had bases in Saudi Arabia.

Also keep in mind the "Al Qaeda folks that flooded into Iraq to fight us" did so only after we invaded the country and opened up that opportunity to them.

Something about working with the Zionists, being prosperous, and mostly, worshipping differently from them. In the process of fighting these people, we managed to alienate some Iraqis, and the rest are just tired and disallusioned. Even if they support the US, we can't protect them from backlash from the local insurgent cell. It really makes it much easier for them to support the insurgents, because the US military doesn't kill you for supporting the other side.

No, they're pissed at us because we unilaterally invaded a sovereign country against the will of the international community, leveled a country to utter devastation and against the advice of top military planners. I'd be joining the insurgency too if that happened here.

whidbey: Not the point. Saddam was a bad man. The US behaved badly by showing up half-assedly into a sovereign nation, without authorization, and history will show that this country played a role in the deaths of perhaps a million or more Iraqis.

The regime wasn't cooperating in the UN inspection program, and many of the actions they were taking seemed very suspicious, especially their lack of ability to provide docu ...


No proof. No justification. Hearsay and speculation. No resolution was drafted to disarm Saddam, no declaration of war was declared by the United States. A disgraceful willful disavowal of protocol and philosophies we supposedly hold dear as a country. I really don't know how you can defend it.

Pragmatically, yeah, sure. We did what we did because we did. That's how empires behave.

Are you happy with this country acting more like an empire than a democratic republic, MCE? You really can't have it both ways.
 
  2008-09-25 08:45:00 PM
"No, they're pissed at us because we unilaterally invaded a sovereign country against the will of the international community, leveled a country to utter devastation and against the advice of top military planners. I'd be joining the insurgency too if that happened here."

1. We did not act "unilaterally" no matter how many times people say we did.

2. MCE was talking about before we went into Iraq. You know... 9/11, the first WTC bombing, and many other terrorist attacks that happened against this country before 9/11.

"No proof. No justification. Hearsay and speculation. No resolution was drafted to disarm Saddam,"

Um?????

Do you forget UN Resolution 1441 ????

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

and...

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"

and....

"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,"

and...

"Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,"

and...

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"


There's more but you can read it yourself....

But in any case, you clearly have a very short memory if you are going to claim that there was,

"No proof. No justification. Hearsay and speculation. No resolution was drafted to disarm Saddam"

"no declaration of war was declared by the United States"


If I recall correctly, you and I have been over this many times.

The US Constitution does NOT require a DOW before we can go to war.

Also, The War Powers Act states,

"SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."


And there was specific statutory authorization to use military force against Iraq.

And again, UN Resolution 1441 states,

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"
 
  2008-09-26 12:58:42 PM
dottedmint: "No, they're pissed at us because we unilaterally invaded a sovereign country against the will of the international community, leveled a country to utter devastation and against the advice of top military planners. I'd be joining the insurgency too if that happened here."

1. We did not act "unilaterally" no matter how many times people say we did.


But we did. We decided to forgo UN protocol and history will objectively note that the Iraq "War" was a US/UK invasion with a handful of other countries that also acted without authorization.

2. MCE was talking about before we went into Iraq. You know... 9/11, the first WTC bombing, and many other terrorist attacks that happened against this country before 9/11.

I know. And I made it clear that Al Qaeda did not go into Iraq until we did, and that Iraq's connection to terrorist acts by Al Qaeda is long been disproven. Even though the Bush administration acted like there WAS such a connection.


Um?????
Do you forget UN Resolution 1441 ????

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

There's more but you can read it yourself....


I don't have to. There's one missing:

The resolution to actually use force and invade Iraq. Oh where oh where can it be????

[/dottedmint]

But in any case, you clearly have a very short memory if you are going to claim that there was,

"No proof. No justification. Hearsay and speculation. No resolution was drafted to disarm Saddam"


Not a one. No WMDS, no threat to the US. It was an action to go into Iraq and control its resources and to have a strategic base of operations in a secular country.

"no declaration of war was declared by the United States"
If I recall correctly, you and I have been over this many times.
The US Constitution does NOT require a DOW before we can go to war.


And I find it necessary to remind you that when we act without authorization or intent of purpose, this country suffers in credibility. Tremendously. When we do not declare a war as the Constitution states, we are acting against its intended purpose.

It always surprises me that such Constitutional buffs like you feel the need to interpret what's already spelled out in English.

And there was specific statutory authorization to use military force against Iraq.

Nope. Not without creating a new resolution. Bottom line.

But it's obvious the US doesn't want authorization. You've captured exactly the method this government is using to "justify" these war crimes and the atrocities that followed the invasion.

As long as we don't follow the rules we set and insist everyone else should follow, the United States fails as a concept and a nation. I believe in the Republic, you believe in the Empire.
 
  2008-09-26 10:58:22 PM
Whidbey: "But we did. We decided to forgo UN protocol and history will objectively note that the Iraq "War" was a US/UK invasion with a handful of other countries that also acted without authorization."

Going in with a coalition of other nations is not acting "unilaterally".

"I don't have to. There's one missing:

The resolution to actually use force and invade Iraq. Oh where oh where can it be????"


Sigh.....

Let's back up....

MCE said,

"The regime wasn't cooperating in the UN inspection program, and many of the actions they were taking seemed very suspicious, especially their lack of ability to provide docu ..."

Then you said,

"No proof. No justification. Hearsay and speculation. No resolution was drafted to disarm Saddam, no declaration of war was declared by the United States. A disgraceful willful disavowal of protocol and philosophies we supposedly hold dear as a country. I really don't know how you can defend it."

And I simply pointed out that the UN agreed with what MCE said....


That Saddam wasn't cooperating in the UN inspection program....

And that the UN had resolutions that were meant to disarm Saddam....

"And I find it necessary to remind you that when we act without authorization or intent of purpose, this country suffers in credibility. Tremendously. When we do not declare a war as the Constitution states, we are acting against its intended purpose.

It always surprises me that such Constitutional buffs like you feel the need to interpret what's already spelled out in English."


The only thing that The US Constitution says is that Congress shall have the power to declare war.

That's it.

It does NOT say that a DOW is needed before military action can take place.


Me "And there was specific statutory authorization to use military force against Iraq."

Whidbey "Nope. Not without creating a new resolution. Bottom line."

The War Powers Act says

"SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The specific statutory authorization was the

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

As long as we don't follow the rules we set and insist everyone else should follow, the United States fails as a concept and a nation.

Except Whidbey we have followed the rules.....

1441 said,

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"

And

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"

This by itself give us the clearance to go into Iraq.

They broke the ceasefire of resolution 687 and resolution 678 gives member states the authority "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 and to restore international peace and security in the area".

Then the War Powers Act says military action can take place with a "specific statutory authorization". And we got that "specific statutory authorization" in the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

So we did follow our rules....
 
  2008-09-26 11:16:49 PM
Anyone got a brief summary of the debate?
 
  2008-09-27 02:16:14 AM
Dottedmint, I'm bored.

From reviewing the history of this thread, I see that you feel the government should have a free hand to spy on terrorist? The warrantless wiretapping and all that?

1) One of the concepts the US justice system is based on is the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

2) Once the government can eavesdrop on you with impunity, what is to prevent them from expanding their definition of terrorism.

3) It would create yet another way for the government to ignore your 4th Amendment rights.

If I am a domestic terrorist set on blowing up Atlanta, I have to be treated the same as if I were in organized crime or if were a serial killer. At least most terrorists have cause. I think that makes them better than a pedophile... right? Now, targeting civilians is pretty slimy, but thats what most criminals do anyway.

Whidbey-

(Regarding big oil) Sorry to bring it up again, because I guess it has been put to bed already, but there is an American tradition used to express disatisfaction with a company/industry. Boycotting is the traditional tool used. While it is nearly impossible to boycott petroleum completely, reduction in consumption can have a similar effect. If you want to blame someone for our continued addiction to oil, blame the consumer. The consumer kept it profitable and refused to cut back until prices had soared. I can imagine the oil companies of the late 90s discussing the policy of keeping prices down so as to not encourage investment into alternate energy sources. Imagine their chagrin (am I using this word correctly? long time reader, first time user) when they discovered they could have been charging $2.50 all along and not caused a huge shift in consumption habits.

There are people who choose to walk the walk when it comes to speaking out against oil. The people who have given up there personal automobiles in favor of the bicycle, bus (natural gas of course), or other mass transit. The consumer is the one that chooses to keep oil king.

And multilateral is the opposite of unilateral. Multilateral means 2 or more nations are involved. My geography is awful, but I think the US/UK are two seperate nations.
 
  2008-09-27 07:35:38 AM
MCE "It would create yet another way for the government to ignore your 4th Amendment rights.

OK...

Let's look at what the Fourth actually says....

Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This says that we are protected against "unreasonable searches"...

Not "warrantless searches"....


"If I am a domestic terrorist set on blowing up Atlanta, I have to be treated the same as if I were in organized crime or if were a serial killer."

And "warrentless searches" have been used against organized crime long before 9/11 ever happened and under specific situations have been ruled constitutional.

And that's kinda the point....

IF we can use it against organized crime then we should be able to use it against terrorists.

Also...

Every time you take a flight, go into a courtroom, go to a major sporting event, (heck) go to a Presidential rally you will be subjected to a warrentless search.
 
Displayed 50 of 2656 comments

First | « | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report