Printable View
I don't know how it went in the US, but over here, it was reported, people looked at it, and said 'meh'.Quote:
Originally Posted by rugrad02
Looking at my past, I am sure you'll find some people who became criminals, bigots or racist. In fact I am sure because I know of a couple.
Perhaps you could consider changin the name of your country to DSA instead of USA: 'Divided States of America'
That may not be far from the truth Bruno. The Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, General Michael Hayden, has told both the Syrian President and Lebanon’s Hezbollah Leadership that the next American president would the ‘last one’ during secret meetings he held in Beirut in early October. Equally as stunning, these reports continue, President Bush had secretly delivered to Syrian President Assad a ‘guarantee’ that Israel would be made to withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for its breaking of its alliance with Iran, news which shocked the Israeli government who stated they were unaware of this latest American move against them. Russian Military Analysts state that these latest US moves are designed around the planned ascendancy to the US Presidency of Barak Obama who they report is slated to lead the United States into the worst period of their history since their 1860-65 Civil War, and which like that conflict is due to fracture the American Nation from its present position as a First World Nation State to one of at least three separate countries based upon ethnic and religious lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
The American people, however, continue to remain in near total ignorance of their impending fate still failing to realize that a United States economy supported by 70 percent of its citizens continually buying things they don’t need while they owe over $25 Trillion in debt on their credit cards they are now using for their most basis of needs, is an economic system that can do nothing else but collapse in a way that will shock these poor people unlike anything ever occurring in their lifetime. Not to be overlooked is that with the coming breakup of the United States their once stalwart ally Israel will be doomed as the Americans continue to be the only Nation still supporting the Jewish State against a rising tide of World condemnation for their imprisonment of the Palestinian people. I only wonder when, or if, these American people will finally awaken to the dangers they face so that they might prepare themselves for survival in the strange World suddenly enveloping them in its evil embrace. For them to do nothing borders on the insane, but if this past decade has shown us anything it is that most of them are.
Yeah you better do, Bill Hemmer is obviously not interested in it - pathetic, but hardly unexpected.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Hmm, if you know about the "secret" meeeting and what was said at the "secret" meeting I guess it wasn't very secret.
Why doesn't Sgt. Joe understand that when you go to war over a false pretense it is a mistake, the US went to war because of the WMD's, for which there were none. If Bush had said "we're going to go to Iraq to help the Iraqi people because they are just like us", I guarantee you that the US would have never gone and Sgt. Joe would still have his leg.
Sgt. Joe doesn't even know why they were there.
That may not be far from the truth Denmason. The Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, General Dirk von Tripe, has told both the Syrian President, Lebanon’s Hezbollah Leadership and Emporor Ming, the Merciless that the next to last American president would the ‘last one an a two’ during tip top, double secret meetings he held in Secret Beirut in early Secret October. Equally as stunning, these secret reports continue, President Bush and thirty seven Asian midgets had secretly delivered to Syrian President Assad a pizza with a ‘thirty minute or less guarantee’ that Israel would be made to withdrawal from the McDonaldland Heights in exchange for its breaking off its alliance with Saturn, news which shocked the Israeli government who stated they were unaware of this latest double-top secret American move against them. Russian Military Analysts state that these latest US moves are designed around the planned ascendancy to the US Presidency of Barak Obama who they report is slated to lead the United States into the worst period of their history since Fonzi jumped the shark, and which like that conflict is due to fracture the American Nation from its present position as a First World Nation State to one of at least three separate countries based upon the choices of dessert and cream rinse.
Personally I agreed with going into Iraq when we did. It is a fact that Saddam had WMD's and that he used them in the past. Bush gave Saddam the option of disclosing the WMD's, if destroyed, when, if the has them, where are they and destroy them. Saddam was a sadistic SOB. Saddam did not make any statements regarding the WMDs known to be in his possession, and he chose to risk the invasion.
My analogy: I'm walking down the street with my family, and I have my handgun with me. A person, who is know is violate due to past personal experience approaches me, and makes threatening gestures/statements. He reaches into his pocket and pulls out what I think is a gun. I pull my gun, and warn him that I will shoot if he proceeds with his current course of action. He fails to comply and I shoot him dead. Upon closer inspection, the "handgun" he pulled out from his pocket is a cell phone. The fact that he did not have a gun does not make my shooting wrong. It was still a righteous and justified shooting.
Saddam was a violent and sadistic individual, and would support any organization that was intent on doing harm to the US. He had WMDs and had used them in the past on his own people. It is not a far stretch of the imagination that he would support any terrorist organization opposed to the USA. He was in blatant violation of multiple resolutions imposed upon him by the UN. The UN required that he disclose the location of the WMDs he had, or, if they were destroyed, prove that they were destroyed. He did not. He was warned of invasion if he did not comply, and he still failed to comply. He was then invaded. All based upon UN resolutions and blessings.
Now, as to why we are still in Iraq, that is a whole different story, that I cannot answer. We should have been out a long time ago, IMHO.
Matt
George W. Bush never really "served" in the military. He just hid from the draft, drank a lot (drugs?), went AWOL, and was an embarrassment to his family and to the country. He then took the country into the most ill-advised war in our history, gave Al Qaeda recruiting fodder forever, and ruined our standing in the world through torture and rendition. Oh, and he has also taken us into the deepest debt and the most precarious economic straits since 1929. Let's not forget his draft-dodging partner Cheney and other chicken-hawks in this sordid administration. I'll take a smart, thoughtful person who has never served in the military if it means avoiding all of that. Obama has been a United States Senator, so there are many ways of serving one's country, as John McCain points out (by saying he's served all of his life). Get over this "never served in the military" thing. It's from another time (WWII) since most people have never done anything for our country, not even shared any sacrifice after 9/11 when it would have been appropriate. Instead, Bush said to go shopping.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
thank you for your post and welcome painter
Quote:
Originally Posted by painter33
There you go again, Joe, doggone it, looking to the past instead of the future. What GWB did or didn't do doesn't mean beans.
Why is it that Democrats always bring up GWB instead of attacking McCain? I mean really now, c'mon. Like McCain has said, if Obama wanted to run against GWB he shoulda done it 4 years ago.
btw, welcome to srp.
I see your analogy and rise you a parable: A small country are doing what all other countries do and have all kinds of weapons on them. Another country, who is known to have more powerful weapons than any other one and is the only one to ever use them approaches the first one and makes threatening gestures/statements. The small country thinks the big one has stepped way over what is decent and ought to mind its own business instead of bullying around whoever is their favorite pick at the moment. Small country also happened to be a friend of the big country before their relationship went sour. The big country tries to gather other countries grant its intervention legitimacy and most of the ones that could stand up to it refuse, while some powerless countries join it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
So the big country goes over the small country and takes over without much effort, but gets enough bruises that when another of the strong countries beats up one of the bully's friends the big country can't help because they're getting stitches in the ER.
The moral(s) - if somebody stronger than you picks a fight, you should expect to lose it. Don't try to be too smart and expect that they will consider the consequences of the bruises they'll take.
If you want to look really smart you should push somebody else fight with the bully and while the later is recovering you can give them the few mild kicks you always craved. At all times keep in mind that if you push it too hard you may get shot.
I think what Bush did or didn't do, and the Republican reaction/complicity, is exactly why the election appears so lopsided now. If the party moved to reign in Bush, things would look a lot different now. Just watch how far Obama runs away from Pelosi to keep the government moderate.Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird
Where was the US in 1988 when Saddam used Chemical Weapons on the Kurds, where was the US when they were used in the Iran-Iraq War, oh yea the US was Saddam's buddy at the time and having dinner with Rumsfeld. The fiction that has been sold to an ignorant American public that hungers for blood and red meat is BS, and a fiction made up to cover their incompetence. If you want to know why the US is still there watch Dick Cheney's interview as to why they didn't go to Bagdad in the first Gulf War. Colin Powell had it right it's the Pottery Barn rule, you break it, you bought it. It's probably one of the few things that John McCain was right about, the US will need to be there for a hundred years.
There are lots of scumbag leaders in the world is the US going after all of them?
Yea you shouldn't look to the past with Republican activity that borders on if not actually criminal, but focus on past minor associations that Obama had with some individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird
Bush should have been impeached for knowingly lying to get the US into a war, the real crime is that he will get away with it.
George W. Bush is the sitting President, a member of the Republican Party so his actions over the last eight years are as relevant as they have been in every other election. I seem to remember the Republicans talking about Bill Clinton during 2000, 2004 and even now. So guess what Obama is running against GWB's record and rightfully so, personally I think he should be running on it more. I haven't even heard him bring up al the failures of that failed administration.
The US had to right to invade a sovereign country without just cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
The inspectors told everyone there were no WMD.
The US later had to admit their evidence was fake.
There was NO reason to invade Iraq.
Yes, it does. killing someone without a good reason is murder or manslaughter.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Thinking you are under attack is not enough reason to retaliate. You have to know you are under attack. Otherwise you are just a trigger happy gunner. Incidentally, this is exactly why you had no international support for the war in Iraq, as opposed to the one in Afghanistan, which was justifiable.
Iraq did not attack the US, and did not have anything to do with Al Qaeda. There was NO valid reason to invade.
Ehrm. Excuse me? The US went in on its own without anyone's blessing. Kofi Anan called the war illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
It was Bush who made threats. Not the UN. Your statement makes it look as if the UN sanctioned the war, but it didn't.
United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutch
I don't know, maybe I'm an odd duck, but I don't vote based on the party, I vote based on whom I believe will do the best job, and as such I listen to what both have to say then make my decision.
If we associate each with their party, then I have no further to look than Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Joe Biden to tag Obama.
Suppose we assume for a second that guilt by association is valid. Your problem with them is precisely what? Please be specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird
j
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Take for example Barney Frank, who said this in response to a Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac overhaul plan in 2003:
“These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Barney Frank 2003
Now he's saying it's the Republicans fault. Seems there's too much party line politics and not enough people taking responsibility for their own actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I guess I have to type something down here to post this response.
Matt
Guilt by association has been the cornerstone of the Obama campaign. just listen to the ads. All they say is "Bush-McCain, Bush-McCain, Bush-McCain" you would think that McCain's full name is George W. Bush-McCain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Matt
Yep! And McCain/Palin have NEVER tried to distract voters from the issues by highlighting Obama's associations...the GOP would never do that.......Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
And which party would be sending out flyers or making calls in heavily Democratic areas, telling voters that Republicans vote today and Dems tomorrow? Or, if you do show up, the police will check to see if you have any outstanding tickets....or to college students, if you vote, your parents will not be able to claim you on their taxes (this happened in Colorado Springs where the local GOP County Gruppenfueherer...er...clerk was caught doing this...only got a slap on the wrist from the GOP Sec of State...who was just ordered by a Federal Judge to stop purging voter rolls....)....
The Dems have pulled their own tricks in the past recent elections, but nothing like I have the GOP doing. McCain is going after the Oval Office like Gollum went after the Ring...."my precious...."
Obama's associations are with Ayers (a known domestic terrorist and socialist, and in who's living room he launched his political career), with Wright, (a blatent racist of a pastor, who was his spiritual advisor until the tapes of Wright's sermons became public), and the toasting of a PLO leader at a dinner party, with Ayers in attendance.Quote:
Originally Posted by WireBeard
The Colorado House of Representatives, Senate, and Governor's office are all controlled by which party? if there is an issue, have your party investigate the SOS office. If there was anything more than purging the names of dead and ineligible voters, then bring on the prosecution. I agree. However, DO NOT STATE that the Colorado political system is so right winged that the Republican's are controlling the democratic process. That is a flat out lie.
Matt
Who said anything about hatred towards Obama? Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't hate Barak Obama, I just don't think he is the one that should be leading this country right now. He is extremely inexperienced. A community organizer with 187 or so days as a US Senator in my eyes falls well short of the experience needed to become president. (as if there was some sort of an experience prerequesite)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
My father taught me to try to see things from both sides. Odd advice from a man who was spit on by a group of hippies in a California airport on his way home from Vietnam in 1969. Trying to see things on an even playing field for this election has been difficult for me. But one thing my father also taught me was respect for the Commander in Chief. If Barak Obama wins the election and becomes our next President, then so be it. Will I hate him? Absolutely no!. Will I respect him. You bet! In the end, the person who runs our country has a tough job and I can't imagine the burden. Calling Barak Obma a socialist is nothing more than my opinion. Call it fear, call it what you will, but in the end it is simply an opinion. It is afterall a great freedom we have, to be able to disagree.
I believe I read a post from you, or was it another SRP user, that told us that Obama really isn't all that bad. For the sake of the country, I hope you or whomever wrote that was right.
So, to you Nord Jim, I say that I respect your opinion and though I disagree with your views I need to look towards the very thing that brought us here to this site. Straight Razors. And so, to you I say Happy Shaving!
Kyle
There must have been enough of an issue for a Federal judge to order Coffman to stop. And the BS perpetrated in Colorado Springs (aka Focus-on-the-Family-ville) was done by a Republican County Clerk and specifically targeted potential Democratic voters...unless the clerk was so intensely stupid to believe that election day was a good time to have the police clear up any outstanding tickets and the Clerk knows about a secret IRS reg where if you are in college and vote, you can no longer be declared as a dependent by your parents. I'm sure the clerk was just being civic minded........
There were dozens and dozens of resolutions. but there was no UN resolution to go to war. The US decided to do that on its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
As for your example about shooting that man: you can shoot the moment you see a weapon. Not before. You don't have to wait until your wife is dead, but neither should you someone on just an assumption.
You were walking in a public place. If he had been entering your home, it would be something else.
And your example also doesn't translate into the situation you described.
Iraq wasn't threatening the US. Iraq was badmouthing the US, but the US does the same to Iran and North Korea.
The US leadership knew they went to Iraq without evidence. Saddam was also not an al qaeda supporter, and he didn't even have a delivery mechanism for the weapons he didn't have. He had some scuds with a very limited range; no ICBM capability.
I'll throw in my 2c before this thing is over.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
I would not call these ads 'guilt by association'. The way I understand the ads is:
Most of John McCain's policies are going to be the same as the republican policies that George W Bush has been implementing over the last 8 years.
Unless you have something against these policies, I fail to see any guilt. Whether the statement is correct is another issue - it is very plausible that McCain will adopt a completely different ideology, but he has not said that. He has just distanced from George W Bush the person, not what George W Bush the politician stands for. At least that's my impression. You were just defending the presidency of George W Bush - I take it you are fairly content with it, in which case I don't see why an association with him and his policies would be a bad thing.
May be you will notice that McCain has recently started to play the same line about Obama's policies, calling them 'socialist' and sometimes 'european'. Obama's line is far more convincing than McCain's just because the comparison is within the same party - but he is in a tough spot there - I don't think he'll do too well if he calls Obama's policies the same as Bill Clinton's.
On the policy front Republicans would prefer to be associated with Reagan, not Bush. Are the policies of both similar? I would say so. The problem is that they seem to have produced different results in different times and lately have not fared too well.
In the Obama's case the logic is competely different:
Obama is associated with shady people, therefore he is a shady person.
This is a reasonable logic, but it is very heavily dependent on the strength of such associations and it doesn't seem to be convincing to the people that are not already hard-core anti-Obama.
So what "serious consequences" should there have been for the failure to abide by the prior resolutions? Another resolution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I was defending the original justification for the invasion of Iraq, not the Bush Presidency.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Matt
I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Iraq was harming nobody and imo, they could have gone on bickering until the end of time. Iraq is a sovereign nation. It doesn't have to care for anything the US or the UN says.
The UN isolated Iraq for failing to comply. Fair enough for me. Eventually Saddam would have fallen on his own.
The US ignores the nuclear non proliferation treaty and is still performing biological and chemical weapons research and development. How is the US different from what Iraq was accused of (but ultimately didn't do)?
The only difference is that the US has enough clout to badger the other countries into compliance, or at least into a position of non opposition. The only difference is that the US can get away with it.
Maybe something a little less "serious" than 85,000+ dead human beings. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Lou
still didn't answer my question. provide alternatives, not talking points.Quote:
Originally Posted by voerman
Matt
You are the first European I have heard say the the UN is an impotent power, which no nation needs to pay any heed. Usually it is the European nations standing up and promoting the use of the UN. The other problem was the France, Germany and many other countries were not abiding by the UN resolutions and Iraq was not isolated. There was rampant abuse of the oil for food program, and many of the high ranking UN representatives and other nations were making billions on the abuse of this program. With the invasion of Iraq, this program ceased to be necessary. Could it be that the nations opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and which blocked resolutions for the invasion were the same countries making billions on this abuse?????!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Please provide support for your statement regarding the USA's alleged ignoring of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Show me your support that the USA is continuing to develop offensive biological weapons. Also, the US is a signatory to the UN-sponsored Chemical Weapons Convention. United States Chemical Weapons Convention Web Site Please provide support that the US is in violation of this convention.
Matt
I think my conclusion about your intention was justified. You were speaking in the coded language of the right wing. Calling someone a "socialist" is bad enough, but your insistence on referring to Senator Obama as "Barack Hussein" has been used as code throughout this campaign to suggest that he is not "one of us."Quote:
Originally Posted by rugrad02
I don't know why you used that term. If you tell me that you meant no harm, then fine. But it seems obvious that you used it as a pejorative, in which case you might profitably evaluate your own motivations.
Yes, I was the one who said things would be alright. Senator Obama isn't anywhere near as radical as the right wing noise machine has indicated. He's actually quite staid and considered. I think that, assuming you're not outright pleased a year from now, you'll at least feel more confident that we're moving in the right direction.
In the meantime, say a quick prayer for whoever wins. They have their work cut out for them, in spades.
j
Why do we need an alternative? Sometimes the status-quo is better than the other options...Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Bruno, I have to support Matt on few of his points, the US has not developed any actual weapons, and has reduced it's chemical weapons stockpile. As for research, that genie is out of the bottle, and will never be put back in. The research for chemical weapons, is basically the same as that for pesticides, fertilizers and pharmaceuticals. Under all treaties research is exempt as it is required to combat weapons that maybe produced, it's also required to monitor the stockpile of existing weapons and develop disposal meathods. EU countries are not blameless in this either, they are the ones that sold Iraq the equipment and technology for chemical weapons, and the French built them a reactor.
The US has violated the the Non-Proliferation treat, how so? Who have they supplied nuclear weapons, materials or technology to? Thats what that treat covers.
As for punishing by isolation, for the most part it is a waste and has many unintended consequences. Many European countries were violating the sanctions too, which even weakens them further.
Saddam never hurt anyone? Give me break there are thousands of dead that can't argue with you about that point.
Comparing the US or any stable democratic country to a brutal totalitarian dictatorship is really just plain silly.
I don't support the reasons as to why George Bush started the war and the attempt to link them to 911 (which Cheney still does). Like your parents say its the lies that get you in trouble. If they had finished in Afghanistan, which had broad support worldwide, then basically said that Saddam is a trouble maker in the Middle East, he threatens the developed world by threatening the world's oil supplies, I would have been more apt to have supported it.
Matt, do you have a link to some source for this information? It is likely that the source would cover a topic I am trying to research myself! Thanks for the help fellow Eagle.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
-Rob
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Under Eye of U.N., Billions for Hussein in Oil-for-Food Plan=
Here is a link to the Volker reports into the Oil for Food program, and how Iraq manipulated the program.
UN Oil-for-Food Programme | UNAUSA.org
Thank you sir!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Quote:
Originally Posted by denmason
Denmason is one enlightened dude.
It's refreshing to read your posts and I am glad to see someone (besides me) follows international politics.
Kudos, bro.