MERGED-->FYM Election Poll - Page 14 - 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 09-19-2004, 09:11 PM   #196
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
I am done arguing with you about this, Sting. I could go and find evidence that Bush lied time and again and put it right in your face and it wouldn't change a thing. You'd still find a way to say that Bush never lied and that there has never been more legal grounds for a war than this one and blah blah blah.

It's not just a matter of black and white. It's not a comic book world where when you beat the boss of the bad guys, all evil ceases. I'm tired of Saddam being made into a figurehead for all of this. Yes, he was a sick bastard who commited too many hanus crimes to count. But so were/are countless other terrorists everywhere in the world. And we don't know their names. But they will still commit their crimes and the war in Iraq won't stop them at all. And there are more terrorists in Iraq NOW that are more dangerous NOW because they can commit their crimes without worrying what Saddam will do them if they do so. There is still terrorism EVERYWHERE. The removal of Saddam is NOT this great victory against terrorism. All it is is the removal of a dictator who was more of a criminal than a statesman and very much a terrorist. But it doesn't even scratch the tip of the iceburg of terrorism. It barely makes a dent. Osama is still out there and he is more dangerous than Saddam ever was and I'm completely convinced we haven't put forth even close to the effort we're capable of in terms of finding him and 'capturing' him. Of course he's a figurehead too, though. The difference between him and Saddam though is that he is behind 9/11, and as bad as anything Saddam ever did was, it pales next to the tragedy of 9/11. And the man behind that is still a free man because Mr. Bush thought it more important to spend all our money and so many young lives on Saddam.

So I could argue about Bush's lies and the lack of UN approval forever and your mind wouldn't change, just like mine isn't. But think about everything I just said. When Bush leaves office, whether that's in January or in 2009, the absence of Saddam from Iraq will represent very little in the way of decreased terrorism in the international community. It's not a comic book world. It's the real world. So, in the end, I believe the war was illegal, unneccessary, and wrong. But that's almost a moot point. Whether it was wrong or right, I don't think it does much at all for decreasing terrorism. It might even increase it, who knows. But you clearly have your mind made up and I have mine made up too. So you go and vote for Bush in November. I'll vote for Kerry. We'll see who wins. And your polls mean percisely zip to me. The only thing that matters is who is on top on election night. That is all.
You have not provided a shred of evidence that proves that Bush knowingly said something that was false. The word "lie" has been abused way to often in this campaign.

I don't think in terms of comic books or read comic books. Saddam was a threat to the region and the world because of his invasions and attacks on four different countries as well as coming close to sabotaging and seizing the majority of the planets energy supply, used WMD more times than any leader in history as well as investing a high percentage of his countries resources to develop WMD than any other leader in the world. Can you name one leader or terrorist in the past 20 years that has even come close to doing those things? Can you name another leader who was in violation of 17 different UN resolutions as well as a UN ceacefire agreement that authorized the use of military force if Saddam failed to meet his obligations?

Saddam was the only one doing the above to that degree. Sure there were other leaders and terrorist who killed their own people and others, but there were no other leaders that did the above, especially in an area of the world that is so sensitive because it is where the planet currently gets the majority of its energy supplies without which the global economy would collapse.

The war to remove Saddam was not a war to remove Terrorism from the face of the earth. It was not done in response to 9/11. It was a war that had been coming for a very long time, 4 and a half years to be exact. The United States and other member states of the UN had been engaged against Iraq ever since the end of the first Gulf War in a massive sanctions and weapons embargo operation as well as the most intensive inspections operation ever launched. It had set up an enclave to protect Kurds in Northern Iraq an set up no fline zones over southern and Northern Iraq. Nearly every day for 12 years between the two wars, Saddam's military would fire on coalition Jets flying in the no fly zone and the coalition planes would bomb Iraqi military artillery batteries that had fired against them.

Unfortunately as time went on, Saddam began to block inspections and final got the inspectors removed and would not cooperate on serious and important details of the disarmament process. In addition, the sanctions regime fell apart as countries like Iran and Syria openly violated it. Even the Weapons Embargo that had been put in place was cracking. Saddam was making 4 Billion dollars a year through black market oil sales. Saddam refused to comply and show the inspectors what had happened to the unaccounted for WMD and this plus all the events from above made the war an absolute necessity.

As terrible as Bin Ladin has been, Bin Ladin has never been able to or had the capability to take over and invade multiple countries. Bin Ladin has not had the capability to sabotage and seize the majority of the planets energy supplies. Bin Ladin never had any of the stock piles of WMD that Saddam did. Bin Ladin did not have anything remotely close to the amount of money and resources that Saddam had. Bin Ladin also has not killed anywhere near the number of people that Saddam has. Saddam has murdered 1.7 million people, while Bin Ladin has murdered several thousand. Bin Ladin did successfully strike the United States, but he did not do anything in that strike that was outside the capability of Saddam given Saddam's multi-Billion dollar wealth. Bin Ladin has to be caught and Al Quada must be completely destroyed, but Saddam also had to be removed as well. One does not have the luxury of solving one problem at a time. The United States did not wait to defeat Japan before it went after Germany in World War II.

The war to remove Saddam was a war to insure the safety and security of the region from Saddam's behavior and abilities that had caused so much trouble, threatening the countries of the region with invasion and occupation, the planets energy supply with seizure and sabotage, countries and the people with WMD attacks etc. The war against Saddam was a war that was a necessity independent of 9/11 or terrorism!

The majority of the forces in Iraq are heavy armor units and would not be used in any hunt for Bin Ladin in the high mountains of Afghanistan. This idea that the USA is not putting forth a full effort to go after Bin Ladin because we have heavy armor divisions in Iraq (that would never be used in that hunt) is pure rubbish.

The United States has 7 times the number of troops, capable of hunting Bin Ladin in the mountains of Afghanistan then it did in November of 2001 when the Taliban were overthrown.

On the question of the legality of the war just answer me these questions:

"If the war was illegal as Mr. Annan claims, why has the UN passed three different resolutions approving the occupation of Iraq? In 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait, the UN immediately put forth and passed a resolutions condemning that invasions! Where is the UN resolution that condemns the current invasion? Please tell me! Where is the UN resolution that calls for the withdrawal of US and coalition troops?"

The war to remove Saddam was a necessity and the coalition in deed had the legal, practical, and moral justification to do so. How it does or does not effect Al Quada and terrorism is a moot point, because the war was a necessity independent of those things.

I've never stated that the election is over and that Kerry can't win. Kerry is in a difficult position though and Bush is definitely in the driver seat. Before you vote for Kerry though, you should consider the fact that he voted for the war in Iraq and has said it was the right thing to do even though WMD stocks have yet to be found.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 09:50 PM   #197
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 04:01 PM
Quote:
"If the war was illegal as Mr. Annan claims, why has the UN passed three different resolutions approving the occupation of Iraq? In 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait, the UN immediately put forth and passed a resolutions condemning that invasions! Where is the UN resolution that condemns the current invasion? Please tell me! Where is the UN resolution that calls for the withdrawal of US and coalition troops?"
Let me re-iterate things I've already said. The war was not legalized by the violations by Saddam/Iraq of previous resolutions. They were violated, yes, but another resolution was needed to explicitly authorize force to invade. That resolution never came to be. The previous resolutions belong the UN, the entire security council, NOT the U.S. or Britian. They belong to the security council. That means a vote from the council was needed. They were party to cease-fire with Iraq, not the U.S. or Britian or any other state. The council never voted it, there was never a new resolution explicitly authorizing the invasion, and the violation of previous resolutions doesn't legalize the war either. This sets a bad example to the entire international community. It says it's ok to attack whoever regardless of what the UN says. Any country could take this view to start a war with any other country they felt deserving. There has to be a sense of order in the internation community and this war disrupts that, and sets a bad and dangerous precedent. And to my knowledge there's no resolution yet for the withdrawl of US and coalition troops. That is because the UN, like most liberals, recognize that even though we completely disagree with the war, taking the troops out now would be a mistake. I have just presented to you the outline of the views of most liberals concerning the illegality of the war. If you don' t like it, don't take it up with just me, take it up with all liberals who oppose the war.
__________________

__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 10:13 PM   #198
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 90
Local Time: 09:01 PM
The UN was never going to authorize the use of force in Iraq. It is almost scary how corrupt the UN and the Oil for Food program became in this matter. Even now they are trying to cover up evidence of funds that went to Saddam instead of the population it was meant to help. French, German and Russian companies were all involved in this scandal. There is an ongoing investigation into this matter by the US Senate. I think what the UN embodies is a great idea, but its policy manifestation does not often times correspond to its alruistic goals.
__________________
Boston01 is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 10:24 PM   #199
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR


Let me re-iterate things I've already said. The war was not legalized by the violations by Saddam/Iraq of previous resolutions. They were violated, yes, but another resolution was needed to explicitly authorize force to invade. That resolution never came to be. The previous resolutions belong the UN, the entire security council, NOT the U.S. or Britian. They belong to the security council. That means a vote from the council was needed. They were party to cease-fire with Iraq, not the U.S. or Britian or any other state. The council never voted it, there was never a new resolution explicitly authorizing the invasion, and the violation of previous resolutions doesn't legalize the war either. This sets a bad example to the entire international community. It says it's ok to attack whoever regardless of what the UN says. Any country could take this view to start a war with any other country they felt deserving. There has to be a sense of order in the internation community and this war disrupts that, and sets a bad and dangerous precedent. And to my knowledge there's no resolution yet for the withdrawl of US and coalition troops. That is because the UN, like most liberals, recognize that even though we completely disagree with the war, taking the troops out now would be a mistake. I have just presented to you the outline of the views of most liberals concerning the illegality of the war. If you don' t like it, don't take it up with just me, take it up with all liberals who oppose the war.
Resolution 1441 is as explicit an authorization for the use of military force as you are going to get. LOOK AT the resolution that authorized the FIRST GULF WAR. Resolution 1441 is just as explicit in authorizing military force as that one.

Please explain to me WHERE in the body of resolution 1441 it says that another resolution would be required to authorize military action against Saddam?

I realize that the resolutions belong to the UN and the Security Council and the UN and the Security Council DID authorize the war in Iraq!

What sets a bad example to the entire Global community is when a dictator is allowed to violate resolutions that were passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations so that military force could be used in order to enforce them. The lack of enforcement for the past 5 years on what are the most serious UN resolutions which authorize military force if Saddam fails to meet his obligations set a bad example. The member states of the UN finally corrected that problem with the coalition which finally enforced the resolutions against Saddam. The sense of order you were talking about was restored with the removal of Saddam and the enforcement of the resolutions.

If the UN believes that the removal of Saddam from power was illegal, why are they not calling for the restoration of Saddam to power? Why would the UN pass multiple resolutions approving an Occupation that they felt would be illegal? When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the UN passed a resolution condemning the invasion! If the UN thought the invasion of Iraq was illegal, where is the resolution that in fact says that it is illegal and condemns it?

Can you show me one UN document or resolution, written during or after the invasion, that even criticizes the invasion of Iraq, let alone says that it was illegal?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 10:31 PM   #200
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Boston01
The UN was never going to authorize the use of force in Iraq. It is almost scary how corrupt the UN and the Oil for Food program became in this matter. Even now they are trying to cover up evidence of funds that went to Saddam instead of the population it was meant to help. French, German and Russian companies were all involved in this scandal. There is an ongoing investigation into this matter by the US Senate. I think what the UN embodies is a great idea, but its policy manifestation does not often times correspond to its alruistic goals.
I agree there were problems with the UN oil for food program, but the UN did authorize the invasion of Iraq in resolution 1441. If one thinks they didn't, then one has no reason to think that the UN authorized the first Gulf War either. The Soviet Union specifically objected to and had explicit words like "military force" and other things taken out of the November 1990 resolution that authorized the Desert Storm operation in January 1991.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 10:48 PM   #201
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 04:01 PM
So it just means nothing to you when even people that are high up in the UN say over and over again that when a resolution like 1441 is violated, there still needs to be another resolution and vote explicitly authorizing force, does it? 1441 is good enough for you. Not for me.

As to why the UN haven't made any resolutions against the current invasion/occupation, I honestly don't know. But I hope you don't think the UN would try to get the troops out now. They're not that stupid.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-20-2004, 04:45 PM   #202
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
So it just means nothing to you when even people that are high up in the UN say over and over again that when a resolution like 1441 is violated, there still needs to be another resolution and vote explicitly authorizing force, does it? 1441 is good enough for you. Not for me.

As to why the UN haven't made any resolutions against the current invasion/occupation, I honestly don't know. But I hope you don't think the UN would try to get the troops out now. They're not that stupid.
Kofi Anan was not the author of 1441, the United States State Department was. Countries that did not want authorization for an invasion of Iraq based on 1441 had an opportunity to vote against it and they did not.

Not only has the UN not made any resolutions against the current invasion/Occupation, but after the overthrow of Saddam's regime, they approved three different resolutions approving of the occupation. It makes no since to approve an occupation that was brought about through illegal means. In addition, the UN asked Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Why not ask the current coalition to withdraw from Iraq if in fact the invasion was illegal just like the Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? If there is concern about stability with the withdrawal of US and other coalition troops, why not ask all those countries that Kerry claims he can get troops and money from to then go in and help.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-20-2004, 09:00 PM   #203
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 90
Local Time: 09:01 PM
It will be interesting to see the course of action that the UN advocates in the Sudan in the wake of Iraq. Lots of tough talk, but who will take it seriously? The security council seems to have a problem with commitment and follow through these days.
__________________
Boston01 is offline  
Old 09-20-2004, 09:05 PM   #204
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:01 AM
It never can agree, as I have illustrated before the oil contracts with key security council members and Khartoum will ensure that the Africans will be dead bloated corpses well before any UN peacekeeping force goes after the Janjaweed and Sudanese Millitary.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 09:03 PM   #205
War Child
 
drivemytrabant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Ohio State University
Posts: 535
Local Time: 04:01 PM
Voting for President Bush and proud of it---from the liberal northeast corner of Ohio
__________________
drivemytrabant is offline  
Old 09-26-2004, 11:45 AM   #206
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

The point is, a poll in a place like FYM is meaningless in regards to the national election.
Any poll is meaningless in regard to whos gonna win the election (especially if its faked, see Florida last time).
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-26-2004, 11:47 AM   #207
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 11:01 PM
By the way:

"Other. I'm a loser too and would prefer to waste my vote on someone else in this tight race."

Qualifying Nader voters as losers is not very.. um, shall I say.. democratic, is it?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-26-2004, 11:53 AM   #208
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
And it is an absolute fact, as sure as the sun coming up in the East tomorrow morning, that the people of America were misled into this war. That is not up for debate. Maybe, whether or not Bush intentionally misled them is up for debate, although I don't think there's any question. But the people were mislead, either way, and that is fact. We were told that there were WMD in Iraq, and there weren't. Fact. Only after that were we told we were there to get Saddam. And even then we were told Saddam was a DIRECT THREAT to the USA. Which is a blatent lie. You can yap all you want about all the trade policies we're involved with over there, all the economic reasons, but the fact is that's not a DIRECT THREAT. Saddam wasn't going to attack America. And we were also told that Saddam's regime was connected to 9/11. And that is also a blatent lie. Al Queda is behind 9/11, Saddam had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying Saddam is a good guy, I'd have to be deaf dumb and blind to say that, but he was not a DIRECT THREAT to us. Over and over were misled.
The people of America were not misled. They were lied to all the time, and stupid enough to believe it. Take responsibilty for your brain in order to avoid future wars.

and I may add: there are still Americans who believe that the U.S. is "keeping the world a safe place" with this war.Yeah, its astonishingly frightening how dumb people can be.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-26-2004, 05:00 PM   #209
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


The people of America were not misled. They were lied to all the time, and stupid enough to believe it. Take responsibilty for your brain in order to avoid future wars.

and I may add: there are still Americans who believe that the U.S. is "keeping the world a safe place" with this war.Yeah, its astonishingly frightening how dumb people can be.
I wouldn't call leaving Saddam in power a way to make the World Safer. No one "lied" and this idea that anyone was misled is a myth spread by those that oppose the administration.

What is astonishing is how often the words "lied" and "misled" have been abused over the past few years. It is also astonishing how so few recognize the problems in the 1990s with Saddam, the inability to achieve verifiable disarmament prior to the start of the war, and the risk leaving Saddam in power posed to the rest of the world because of his non-compliance and past behavior.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-26-2004, 05:24 PM   #210
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:01 AM
Not to mention the consistent attacks on allied warplanes enforcing the no fly zones. They could have been a reason for war.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer 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 04:01 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