MERGED-->FYM Election Poll - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Who will you be voting for, for US President?
Kerry 171 66.02%
Bush 74 28.57%
None. I'm a loser and won't vote. 4 1.54%
Other. I'm a loser too and would prefer to waste my vote on someone else in this tight race. 3 1.16%
Undecided between Bush and Kerry. 7 2.70%
Voters: 259. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-13-2004, 02:16 AM   #166
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Sting:
the middle east outside of Iraq is no more unstable than it was years ago

ok, Mr. Sharon is in fear of a of civil war in Israel. Terrorists try to destabilize Saudi Arabia more and more, some countries claim that Afghanistan is allready out of control.

And of course you're right that it's quite normal what hapenes there - but i remember that crititcs of the war were "blown away" with statements that the Iraqi people would welcome the troops with flowers etc.
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 03:14 AM   #167
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:31 AM
I can think of only one ignorant statement about Iraqi's greeting the US as total liberators. I think that every advocate of intervention reciognized that this was going to be a big action and a long slog. They just put a large US presence a day trip away from any budding Jihadi, it is ignorant to expect anything less and it would cost lives. I would guage this action as a success even if 5,000 US troops are killed and 30,000 Iraqi civilians, if the goals are achieved. If we leave now all those lives will have been wasted and whichever president approved the pullout would be responsible for the Iraqi's killed in the aftermath.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 04:55 AM   #168
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:31 PM
2002.
President Bush:
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and gases."
Any proof for that?
President Bush
"The Iraq regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . [I]t has developed weapons of mass destruction."
Cheney
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
Condoleezza Rice:
"We do know that there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq . . . of aluminum tubes that . . . are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."
Powell
"There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks. . . . With respect to biological weapons, we are confident that he has some stocks of those weapons and he is probably continuing to try to develop more."

2003
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
"We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate."
Powell
"The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, more time for him to pass a weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again."

senior administration official:
(Iraq)"really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

But maybee you are right, it's just the uninformed who can be misslead by such statements, the informed Americans remember the made up "Incubator Story" to justify the Iraq war of Mr. Bush senior in public and don't expect anything honest if a government WANTS to go to war

awanderer:
i agree with you in one point, leaving now is no option it would make that situation worse.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 05:27 AM   #169
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:31 AM
I cannot see anything in those statements that doesn't agree with what we understood before the war and what has come out after the war. In 1991 when Saddam declared what he had it far surpassed the assesments made by the CIA, because of this they had to assume that he hadn't declared everything. This assumption fitted the treatment the Baathists gave the UNSCOM up until 1998. Bill Clinton believed that Iraq still possesed the WMD and he was on the brink of all out war in 1998 when Saddam kicked out inspectors. After 1998 there were some very serious connections being explored between the regime and Al Qaeda, now it is true that one group was secular despots and the other were religious fascists but that does not change the fact that there were connections made and talk of Bin Laden seeking sanctuary within Iraq after the Taliban got concerned with the Embassy Bombings.

The goals of the invasion was to eliminate a criminal regime and remove the persistant threat of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. I believe that that has been done - there is no chance of the regime developing furthur weapons capabilities or handing them over to dangerous parties and that is a good thing for international security.

In addition the number of people who are alive today because of direct intervention far surpasses thost who were killed, a conservative estimate gives at least a ten fold relationship, how many people here would be willing to have left the regime in power - knowing full well of its crimes and the people who were dying - and not act. How is it humanitarian to leave innocent people to suffer while evil is commited.

Lastly and by no means least what we have is the potential to craft a new type of Arab country. One that is not governed by state terror or religious fascism - a free state governed by citizens in a transparent and democratic manner. The achievement of changing the Arab and Persian world into free and open societies must be the desired goal of all nations that cherish liberty. We literally cannot have peace while despotism exists, there are much fewer examples of two free liberal democracies going to war with eachother than wars between authoritarian and liberal countries. Peach is guaranteed through liberty.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 05:40 AM   #170
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Awanderer
Saddam didn't kick out the inspectors - they left because of a bombing of Iraq and he didn't let them in again after that.

Quote:
I cannot see anything in those statements that doesn't agree with what we understood before the war and what has come out after the war
Maybe you can help me with this:

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and gases."
I didn't find any proof for that yet.


"The Iraq regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . [I]t has developed weapons of mass destruction."
Yeah, the somking gun the US inspectors were looking for (note: they didn't let the UN inspectors in)

"We do know that there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq . . . of aluminum tubes that . . . are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."
proven wrong afik

"There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks. . . . With respect to biological weapons, we are confident that he has some stocks of those weapons and he is probably continuing to try to develop more."
Still no stocks found, could be sold to Terrorist groups druring the chaos in Iraq.

"We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate."
right, but no active nuclear program could be found yet in Iraq (well we have these programs in North Korea and Iran)


"The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, more time for him to pass a weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again."
Clear ties to Al-Quaida? Erm hmm well - almost as clear as the ties from the US government to al-quaida probably.

(Iraq)"really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
Well, sure - depends on what he was thinking when he used the word "soon" probably soon if you compare it to the age of the wrold.

Quote:
Lastly and by no means least what we have is the potential to craft a new type of Arab country. One that is not governed by state terror or religious fascism - a free state governed by citizens in a transparent and democratic manner.
I hope it turns out this way also at the moment it looks like wishfull thinking. Because of the way this war was handeled there are more anti-american and pro-religious-leader feelings in Iraq then before.

Maybee it would have worked out better if the US said they wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy in the UN. No "smoking gun" or "self defense", no lies (sorry, no wrong facts). Maybee that would have addressed the heart of the arab people.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 05:51 AM   #171
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:31 AM
Please note where I say potential to achieve a democratic state, that potential exists however to achieve it it must be won. It will not be like your average western democracy. It will be dominated by various religous parties and former regime groups. It will take time but if a free state can be maintained, if in 20 years the country still exists and whatever government in power is an elected government then it will be on the right track. The people of Iraq have suffered so long for their freedom they will not surrender it lightly, I am optimistic that if the US can train an Iraqi security force and remove the US presence from the "Arab Street" the Iraqi government (whatever it may be) can make a go of it. It will be shakey, it will not be totally free but it will be a seed. As the oil starts to flow and the money goes to the right places Iraq may build itself up to be the most progressive state in the Arab world. If it suceeds then it will send a message to every Arab that they deserve better. That just because they are Palestinian or Saudi Arabian they do not have to put up with their current rulers. It will not change everyones mind, Iraq will definitely be a target of Islamists for years if not decades to come.

It is not our job to "win the peace", the US presence is part of the problem of violence in Iraq. When the coalition can remove itself from Iraq, if only the major troop numbers while having Iraqi patrols on the streets, the country will calm down to a degree. There is much work to be done and more people will die, but in the final analysis the sacrifice of those soldiers may save millions of lives - Iraq is not Vietnam, there are widespread concequences for any action. If those concequences are good or bad depends on how far we are willing to go and how willing we are to fight for it.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 12:29 PM   #172
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I'd like for you to do something. Please state for me which UN resolution was voted and passed in opposition to the coalition war in Iraq. Please give the number of the resolution and the date that it was passed on.

There are three different UN resolutions which authorize the use of military force against Saddam if he failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. These are resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. Resolution 1441 was passed on November 8, 2002. The Coalition invasion to remove Saddam from power started 4 months later on March 19, 2003.

Please tell me the resolution where the UN voted against going to war in Iraq. I'd like the resolution number, date, and how each member of the Security Council voted please.
Follow this link: http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/...lution1441.asp

Now, I realize that overall, 1441 was approved. But look at the different sections of it. Look at number 14. "Decides to remain seized of the matter". That is where they voted against using force.

And there was another one that was never even brought to a vote because France and Germany had promised to veto. UN was far from agreement on the matter.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 04:12 PM   #173
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR


Follow this link: http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/...lution1441.asp

Now, I realize that overall, 1441 was approved. But look at the different sections of it. Look at number 14. "Decides to remain seized of the matter". That is where they voted against using force.

And there was another one that was never even brought to a vote because France and Germany had promised to veto. UN was far from agreement on the matter.
#14 "Decides to remain seized of the matter" is NOT a vote against the use of force. All it means is that the UN Security Council will continue to remain aware and in control of the matter. This is after authorizing the use of force if Saddam failed his one last chance to comply. In addition, prior resolutions such as 678 and 687 which both authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to meet his obligations are reaffirmed in resolution 1441.

There is no resolution by the United Nations which is a vote against the use of force in regards to the situation with Saddam. All of these resolutions against Saddam including 1441 were passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow for the use of military force.

In addition, the United Nations would never pass resolutions approving the occupation if it thought the war that brought about the occupation was illegal. There have been 3 UN resolutions approving the current occupation set up.

For example when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN immediately went forward and called for a resolution condemming the invasion, had it voted on and passed, and then approved other resolutions authorizing the use of military force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait as well as to require Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD.

In the current situation, the use of military force by the USA and other member states of the UN was supported by 3 different resolutions, 678, 687, and 1441. Then after the invasion, the occupation and rebuilding phase has been approved by 3 more UN resolutions starting with 1483.

So not only did the UN approve of the use of force to insure the disarmament of Saddam's regime, but it has approved of the occupation and nation building efforts since the end of the invasion.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 09:11 AM   #174
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Hmm . . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...9,00.html?=rss
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 02:24 PM   #175
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:31 AM
Iraq War illegal!

Odd that it doesn't make any mention of the UN officials being in league with Saddam in exchange for oil vouchers.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 07:04 PM   #176
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
Hmm . . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...9,00.html?=rss
Well, Mr. Anan does not have a vote on the security council. There are three resolutions which authorize the use of force, 678, 687, and 1441. If Anan believes that these resolutions did not authorize operation Iraqi freedom in 2003, then he has no grounds to believe that the 1991 Gulf War was authorized either.

Second, if the Iraq war was illegal, why would the UN Security Council pass multiple resolutions after the war authorizing the occupation?

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN immediately put a resolution to a vote to condemn the invasion. It was of course passed. The UN security council then passed resolutions authorizing the removal of Saddam's forces from Kuwait with military force. If the Iraq war was illegal as Mr. Anan claims, where is the resolution condemning the invasion? Where is the resolution calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops and the restoration of Saddam's government?

If Mr. Anan had his way, Saddam would still be in power.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 09:17 PM   #177
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 03:31 PM
I think the Secretary General of the United Nations knows what he's talking about just a little more than you do.

This war is illegal under international law. It's just sad that Annan appears to be one of the only people in a high position of power that has a grasp on reality. Perhaps he realizes that this whole war is not going to conclude with the fairy tale democracy with a fairy tale election in January. It's sad that Annan is the only one with the balls to flat out state that the interm government is indeed having a hard time controlling things.

I only wish the president of our country would have the balls to be that honest. That's what we need in a president.

God I hope this guy gets voted out in November.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 10:41 PM   #178
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:31 AM
I wish that Saddam had been kept in power and all those nasty Iraqi people could be in his dungeons getting their testicles cut off with blunt knives, I also wish that more of those pregnant Iraqi women could have had the oppertunity to be cut to pieces in front of their husbands because they were enemies of the state.

Get real, international law is the shield of tyrants, intervention is the best solution.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 10:43 PM   #179
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:31 AM
Rwanda, Sudan, Congo and Zimbabwe

The UN spends all its time busting Israel for protecting herself while literally ignoring true crimes against humanity. There is not one bit of compassion in that Jew hating cesspool of corruption. It is not like The Federation, it is Mob Rule of the World.

to the United Nations, I would like to see a world where globalist instituations worked for mankind rather than working for evil.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-17-2004, 04:15 PM   #180
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
I think the Secretary General of the United Nations knows what he's talking about just a little more than you do.

This war is illegal under international law. It's just sad that Annan appears to be one of the only people in a high position of power that has a grasp on reality. Perhaps he realizes that this whole war is not going to conclude with the fairy tale democracy with a fairy tale election in January. It's sad that Annan is the only one with the balls to flat out state that the interm government is indeed having a hard time controlling things.

I only wish the president of our country would have the balls to be that honest. That's what we need in a president.

God I hope this guy gets voted out in November.
The Secretary General of the United Nations is entitled to his opinion, but he does not ultimately decide whether a resolution is or is not approved and whether a war is legal or not. Once again, the war has three different resolutions that authorize it. If Annan does not think they do, then he should not think the first Gulf War was authorized either. Second, if Annan thinks the war is illegal, why has the UN approved of 3 resolutions authorizing the occupation? Where is the resolution attempting to condemn the invasion? Where is the resolution calling for the withdrawal of US and coalition troops, if the war is in fact illegal as Annan claims? The fact is, no war in history has had more legal documentation justifying it than the war to remove Saddam from power.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com