|
Post by ha on May 9, 2004 12:14:42 GMT -5
Iraq is part of the war for OIL. I will reply this when Osama is captured and brought to trial. The authority of your signature as a state. If you do not honour your obligations then you cannot request others to honour them. ... especially oil - yes we know that. And do not try to persuade us that it was the poor Iraquis that the US cared about. We do not buy this ... And if the US tries harder to promote its OWN interests the UN may even dissolve ... Remeber who did not pay its contribution to the UN for years ... The problem baby is that terrorism does not come out of the blue but is caused by the actions (or inactions) of this group of nations ! Especially their support for Israel ... To add to this argument, it would be more acceptable for the US to act unilateraly if it had signed the International Court's juridisdiction for crimes against humanity. But it did not - even pushed other states not to sign this international treaty just to make sure that US military can «go rumpy pumpy and remain unpunished» ... Especially the paost about Powell lying to the UN www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1507921,00.html Stop supporting Israel. Terrorist attacks will stop and a just solution will then be possible for the Middle East problem. Again these connections are only in your head no name. And the war is for the oil - no against terrorism. Otherwise the US should have attacked Saudi Arabia first ... Well Spain was - and is pulling its forces out of Iraq. Sure - many in the US that is. Well Bertine I see we are on the same side of the Atlantic - and inspite of my «arrogant, inhuman, antiamerican» bias on the same side all along. I think no name is a typical American voting for Bush, hating communists and Saddam and believing to the best propaganda machine the world ever produced - American media. She will not change her mind so go on with your exams - this is the best way to serve your country and the idea of peace ...
|
|
|
Post by Guarp on May 9, 2004 14:43:52 GMT -5
As an European I've been following this thread with some curiousity as it beautifully depicts the different views from both 'sides' of the world in this case. After 9/11 and the hunt for Bin Laden, support from the world for the USA was huge and still is, when it comes down to fighting terrorism. It's only too bad G.W. Bush went too far in hunting down an old enemy of his dad. Groupthink is a very scary phenomenom, and I have noticed and read polls in Newsweek which showed people believing things that were never actually proven, which is a shame in a country with a supposedly free and critical press. I feel that Bertine made things about Bush and his justification about war clear enough in her posts (which I support), so I won't get into this too much. No Name stated: Consider some more facts: in 2001, the U.S. was voted off the UN Human Rights Commission. The country in charge of that Commission? That would be the great human rights champion – Libya. Meanwhile, in charge of the disarmament committee is another great member of the family of nations – Syria. It might be funny if it weren’t so frightening! It was not Libya who voted out the U.S., but the members of the Economic and Social Council who voted to replace Norway and the United States with Austria and Sweden. (The four countries competing for three posts in the commission's Western group were France with 52 votes, Austria, 41, Sweden, 32, and the United States with 29.) (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/5/3/195150.shtml) Concerning Syria: Blair visited Syria a couple of weeks ago, who trys to start up a dialogue about terrorism and seeks cooperation in fighting it. That's something Bush can learn from him. Unfortunately, since it’s unlikely that the UN will be eliminated altogether, the U.S. will probably continue to give lip service to the UN while simultaneously acting in its own interests. It was quite interesting to see that Bush passed the UN at first hand but when rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq became an issue he asked the UN for help. Interesting. And I can't see the USA as being big spenders as they have a huge debt with the United Nations, about 1.4 billion dollars.. just think about that! Asking for support and collaboration and on the other hand still owing millions of dollars to the same organization. While this is going on there still is a serious lack of sufficient funds for a lot of UN projects all over the world. The UN are doing a great job in peace keeping, education, healthcare, refugee help and human rights and they (and ALL of the participating countries) should be respected for that. Excluding or alienating countries does not bring us one step closer to a world that's free, more humane and respectful.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 9, 2004 16:19:15 GMT -5
The Perils of a Righteous President Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance Sunday, May. 09, 2004 After his grudging public apology for the behavior of U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison, George W. Bush attended a ceremony commemorating the National Day of Prayer. His remarks there were, as we have come to expect from this President, a stirring mix of humility and certainty. "God is not on the side of any nation, yet we know He is on the side of justice," Bush said. "Our finest moments [as a nation] have come when we have faithfully served the cause of justice for our own citizens, and for the people of other lands." The words are wonderful, but such sentiments are easily corrupted. Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced. We are humble before the Lord, Bush insists. We cannot possibly know His will. And yet, we "know" He's on the side of justice—and we define what justice is. Indeed, we can toss around words like justice and evil with impunity, send off mighty armies to "serve the cause of justice" in other lands and be so sure of our righteousness that the merest act of penitence—an apology for an atrocity—becomes a presidential crisis. "This is not the America I know," Bush said of the torturers, as if U.S. soldiers were exempt from the temptations of absolute power that have plagued occupying armies from the beginning of time. As the nation suffered the disgrace of Abu Ghraib last week, I traveled through Turkey and Jordan—our staunchest Islamic allies in the region—and talked with moderate politicians, businesspeople and military officials. Most found Bush's moral talk either duplicitous or fatuous. "Liberate Iraq? Rubbish," said a prominent Jordanian businessman. "You occupy Iraq for the strategic and economic benefits. You are building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad. Halliburton and Bechtel are running everything, at enormous profits. And then I watch Bush on Al-Arabiya and all I see is his sense of moral superiority. He brings democracy and freedom to the barbarians. But who are the barbarians? Even before the Abu Ghraib pictures, we saw male soldiers searching Iraqi women and humiliating Iraqi men by forcing their heads to the ground." The President's moral convictions are, no doubt, matters of true faith—and the Jordanian businessman is a member of an authoritarian establishment with much to lose if Islamic radicals or, faint chance, democrats take charge. But Bush's moral certainty almost seemed delusional last week in the vertiginous realities of Iraq. A distressing, uninflected righteousness has defined this Administration from the start, and it hasn't been limited to the President. Bush's overheated sense of good vs. evil has been reinforced by the intellectual fantasies of neoconservatives like I. Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz, who serve Bush's two most powerful advisers, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. It was neoconservatives who provided the philosophical rationale for the President's gut response to the evildoers of Sept. 11: a grand crusade—yes, a crusade—to establish democracy in Iraq and then, via a benign tumbling of local dominoes, throughout the Middle East. Those who opposed the crusade opposed democracy. Those who opposed the President coddled terrorists (according to recent g.o.p. TV ads). They were not morally serious. But democracy doesn't easily lend itself to evangelism; it requires more than faith. It requires a solid, educated middle class and a sophisticated understanding of law, transparency and minority rights. It certainly can't be imposed by outsiders, not in a fractious region where outsiders are considered infidels. This is not rocket science. It is conventional wisdom among democracy and human-rights activists—and yet the Administration allowed itself to be blinded by righteousness. Why? Because moral pomposity is almost always a camouflage for baser fears and desires. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neoconservatives share a primal belief in the use of military power to intimidate enemies. If the U.S. didn't strike back "big time," it would be perceived as weak. (Crushing the peripheral Taliban and staying focused on rooting out al-Qaeda cells wasn't "big" enough.) The President may have had some personal motives—doing to Saddam Hussein what his father didn't; filling out Karl Rove's prescription of a strong leader; making the world safe for his friends in the energy industry. The neoconservatives had ulterior motives too: almost all were fervent believers in the state of Israel and, as a prominent Turkish official told me last week, "they didn't want Saddam's rockets falling on Tel Aviv." At the very least, they were hoping to intimidate the Palestinians into accepting Ariel Sharon's vision of a "state" without sovereignty. Abu Ghraib made a mockery of American idealism. It made all the baser motives—oil, dad, Israel—more believable. And it represents all the moral complexities this President has chosen to ignore—all the perverse consequences of an occupation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Klein is a senior writer for TIME Magazine based in New York and Washington, D.C. He wrote the critically-acclaimed novel "Primary Colors." From www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,634641,00.html
|
|
|
Post by just reading on May 9, 2004 17:23:40 GMT -5
hello hello, i'm in the middle of exams so i;ll keep it short! So much for keeping it short... How is the syudying on the exams going? I bet you do good on the exams if you are as thorough in your studies as you are in your posts. I hope they aren't essay exams
|
|
|
Post by still reading on May 9, 2004 17:31:42 GMT -5
Joe Klein is a senior writer for TIME Magazine based in New York and Washington, D.C. He wrote the critically-acclaimed novel "Primary Colors." And a staunch democrat which explains his views of the article and detracts greatly from his argument.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 9, 2004 20:11:53 GMT -5
A favorite mantra of those opposed to the Iraq war, but again – totally untrue. If the U.S. simply wanted to use war to get free or cheaper oil, we could have kept Kuwait’s oil fields for ourselves back in 1991. Heck, in 1991, the U.S. could have moved its 500,000+ troops on the ground into Iraq itself to capture the oil fields; after all, Iraq had no army left to oppose us. Who could have stopped us? Why have we been paying market prices for Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil ever since? If America wants to use its military might just to conquer or steal oil, they why don’t we move southward and seize the Mexican or Venezuelan oil fields? It would certainly be a whole lot cheaper to take oil fields south of the border than to go halfway around the world! Besides, if all we wanted was cheaper oil, the U.S. would have given into French and German demands to lift the economic sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s. Okay, substitute Al Queda for Osama. We’ve captured/killed many Al Queda operatives. What is your answer to this: ”Sorry if I missed this in some discussion ha, but do you think President Bush was justified in the war to dismantle [Al Queda] after the second attack on the World Trade Center? “The point being, none of the member states are required to honor those obligations. Saddam routinely refused to honor those obligations. Why is the U.S. expected to honor some imaginary agreement to the UN, when despotic leaders routinely ignore them? The answer – they shouldn’t, and doing so would be tantamount to castration; but then, I’m sure many people in the world would relish this thought, wouldn’t they . . . Reiteration of my above comments and posts pertaining to this issue. Good. I hope that the UN dissolves (or at least just concerns itself with humanitarian aid issues). The UN has been pretty much an utter failure at maintaining “world peace”, just like the League of Nations. Not true. The problem is that terrorism is not caused by the actions/inactions of any nation; it is not caused specifically by what a nation “does” but what they “are”. Terrorists would be trying to destroy the U.S., even if we withdrew all our troops from everywhere in the world tomorrow and stopped making any statement at all about foreign affairs. Osama didn’t say even one word about U.S. policy towards Israel and the Palestinians until AFTER 9/11 (even though he had plenty to say about how “evil” we were before then). So continued efforts to blame the U.S.’s support for Israel as the reason that terrorists attacking us, is unfounded. And no matter how valid ANY complaints against the U.S. may be, nothing, NOTHING can justify terrorist attacks intentionally aimed against innocent civilians. To suggest differently is repulsive. Wow, you have such a way with words . . Good grief Again, Osama never mentioned the U.S. position on Israel until AFTER 9/11, so the above opinion is not based in reality. Nope – I’m afraid not! This above comment, however, is only in your head . . . Thank God Spain didn’t have to suffer the catastrophic loss that the U.S. did on 9/11, but their reaction of retreat in the face of terrorism will not protect them. Reiteration of above posts regarding this issue. You’re sorely mistaken. Actually – you might want to re-read my post. I did not say that Libya voted out the U.S. Of course, diplomacy/dialogue will be the first attempt to deal with nations that support/harbor terrorists. Remember that Bush attempted diplomacy with Afghanistan, by asking them to hand over Osama. He even attempted diplomacy with Iraq. Thankfully, Lybia was motivated to begin cooperating without military action on our part. Hopefully, Syria will cooperate as well. Despite how people may try to malign our intentions, it is generally not in the nature of the U.S. to attack without efforts to peacefully resolve an issue, so I don't know what you mean by Bush “learning” something from Blair meeting with Syria. The UN may be doing a good job at “education, healthcare, refugee help”, but I strongly disagree with the notion that the UN has been effective at “peace keeping” and “human rights” issues. Though the UN “supposedly” exists to preserve “world peace”, it has failed to do so. Again – the UN sat idly by during genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia. The UN has failed to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians and failed to prevent twentieth-century wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. The UN should stick to what it does best – but maintaining international law and order is not one of those things, even though people would love it to be so.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 9, 2004 20:13:41 GMT -5
hello hello, i'm in the middle of exams so i;ll keep it short! (try to anyway) will skip the issues that have been touched before and we ll never agree on lol. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on various issues -- You mean like how Saddam was so concerned with International Law when he attacked Kuwait? The point is, adhering to supposed "international organizations/law" does no good, when tyrannical dictators and terrorists forces have no respect for them in the first place! The USA does not think it can "rule the world singlehandedly", but if it has to act alone (which it really didn't do in the Iraq war, btw), it will do so in order to protect itself! If this is erroneously seen as the USA running around doing what they want to other nations (not the case!), or that we want to "rule the world", I guess that can't always be avoided. There will always be people who have this view of our country. We don't conquer countries -- we rebuild them. After being attacked without warning and rallying to victory in WWII, we helped restore economic prosperity to our foes, and did not attempt to rule the world! But I suppose it is "arrogant" of me to note this fact . . . Yes, Clinton was quite the charmer -- that was one of the many problems . . . . (Funny that you think Clinton was "charming", but Bush reminds you of a lost puppy dog?) Kerry -- well, Kerry is definitely seen by many people here as someone with no core, no backbone -- a "flip-flopper" they call him. He often says one thing one day, then will say something totally different the next . . . . many people (even his supporters) don't know for sure where he stands on many issues. Maybe even Kerry himself isn't sure . . . We will continue to disagree on whether Bush has "wrong principles". I happen to think it's not an indication of "wrong principles" for our President to not put the security of his country at the mercy of international organizations like the UN. You feel differently. Repeat of my earlier assertions about the ineffectiveness of the UN. Why should the U.S. be beholden to the members of the UN, when many of them seek to act against our interests? Where is the moral obligation the U.S. has to put its interests in the hands of an ineffective organization like the UN, which is an absolute failure at promoting/preserving world peace? Socialism/Communism look and sound good on paper too, but in real life they are not the most feasible political environments for promoting individual liberties/success. Same thing with the UN. Its original purpose sounds good and noble -- but it has been clear for the longest time that the UN has failed miserably at being an effective tool for implementing so-called "international law". The UN is best suited as a tool for humanitarian work; no argument from me on that issue . . . You think recognition of that truth is bragging or arrogance? It's no wonder there is so much Anti-Americanism -- who likes to recognize the truth in the role that our country has played in the promotion of the ideals that the UN is supposed to enforce, but hasn't succeeded at? Sorry, Bertine, but the more various people in the world want to heap their anger on us, the more this will prove the point. Actually, I didn't even notice that comment -- you should see how I worked on constructing my response to you; it was pretty unorganized, so it doesn't surprise me if I didn't respond to your every word. I think pride in our country and in ourselves as a people is a virtue -- definitely. Especially, when we have so much to be proud of ourselves for! The problem is, our national pride is all too often mistaken for "arrogance". Self-confidence and strong leadership are all too often mistaken for "arrogance" -- this can't be helped. It will always be seen as such; probably just about anything the U.S. does to act in it's interests or for the protection of its people (or others) will most likely be frowned upon. That can't always be avoided -- but then, this is probably an "arrogant" position to take, of course! Yes, I know the majority of Spaniards were against the war in Iraq; but as you say, this was not an issue to them (before the 3/11 terrorist attacks). It wasn't until after they were targeted specifically, that the Spaniards decided to elect a candidate who would retreat/surrender to terrorist forces. As far as the Spaniards' fear that the war would only encourage more terrorists attacks, I ask you this: If Spaniards felt that Iraq was truly not part of the larger war on terror, why would they be afraid of more terrorist attacks occurring when the war was waged against Iraq! This only proves the point -- Iraq is indeed part of the conflict with terrorism, even if people want to deny it as such. And since this is a "war" that is being fought against terrorist forces, there will be attempts made by the terrorists to dissuade weaker countries from following through with the fight. Backing away from these people will not suddenly change their mind about wanting to kill us! It doesn't work that way with them.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 9, 2004 20:15:08 GMT -5
Okay -- what do you think is best? Complacency hasn't worked; appeasement hasn't worked; ignoring them hasn't worked; foreign aid to countries that sympathize with terrorists hasn't worked. There is no such thing as "diplomacy" in dealing with fanatical forces like terrorism (this is what many others in the world haven't fully realized -- yet). What other options do we have? Nothing. If we lose this war, no other political issue will matter -- free society cannot ultimately survive with suicide bombers blowing up malls, offices, and theaters. Allowing terrorist networks to expand and grow would result in the destruction of our way of life. Fighting the war on terror involves several aspects -- one of which also includes physical war. This cannot be discounted. To attempt to discount the necessity of this with comments like -- we just don't think we should use bombs to fight the war, etc., etc., means that people think this battle can be fought with one hand tied behind our backs (collectively speaking). This is impossible to do, if terrorist forces are to be defeated. The words of Jimmy Carter don't hold a lot of weight with me, especially when he has engaged in bashing our country while overseas. I'm sure that many people/countries probably think the U.S. should be a continually open pocketbook to global interests. We should pay our "fair share", right? Common liberal mantra. What do you mean "thank goodness there are still voices of opposition in the US"? There have always been opposing viewpoints in this country. Opposition isn't shut down here, even though various people may staunchly disagree with that opposition -- the U.S. isn't in the practice of imprisoning or killing people that disagree with its politicians. Well, it would be incorrect to say that "suddenly all voices of opposition faded away" upon the start of the war. This is not true at all. But when the war began, many of the people who opposed the decision for war controlled themselves somewhat, simply out of respect for our troops who are putting their lives on the line. And I'm sorry, but today's continual harping at the President and our mission in Iraq by some of Bush's political opponents and others here (while within their right to do this), does have a negative affect on our troops. Our failure in Vietnam had just as much (if not more) to do with the "peace protestors" breaking the emotional will of the American people, as the bungled political mess that the politicians and the media made of it. "Seem" is the operative word here -- you're mistaken to think that we (as Americans) "only praise Bush and can't say anything critical about him". There are many people who are fully behind Bush's policy on defense of this nation, but are totally opposed to him on domestic matters. Don't deceive yourself into thinking that freedom of speech is dead in our country. Far from it! It is one of the most protected aspects of our society -- sometimes to the point of being ludicrous. I guess if one doesn't view Iraq as being part of the war on terror, then of course they would have "serious doubts". For those who firmly believe (based on history and fact) that Iraq is most definitely a part of this larger war, they understand why war was waged. Things might not be perceived as "safer" in the immediate moment, but that is because a war on terror is in the midst! But I feel safer to know that we're taking stronger measures to protect ourselves (and in the process others as well), instead of cowering in a corner with our hands over our head! Again, diplomacy doesn't work with fanatical people; Hitler was pretty clear proof of that! See, this is where many people are mistaken. Developmental aid won't change the minds and psyche of those who already hate us -- just because of who we are. It's absolutely not the case that "the great source of terrorism is poverty". The great source of terrorism is fanatical hatred ingrained into people (even young children) that they will be glorified in Heaven for intentionally killing innocent people. There is a huge amount of poverty in many countries -- the overwhelmingly vast majority of poverty-stricken are NOT running around blowing up innocent people! Nope. Terrorism as a whole has nothing to do with poverty. Poverty does not breed terrorism. Hatred breeds terrorism. Osama bin Laden is a very wealthy man -- he self-financed a global terrorist network and has eluded the world's most powerful military and law enforcement agencies for years. If poverty caused terrorism, Saddam himself would be standing in line at a soup kitchen! The FARC (a terrorist group wreaking havoc in Columbia) is very wealthy, and controls a multi-billion drug trafficking empire. In Mexico, India, Africa, and even communist China, some of the most impoverished people in the world are closer to saints than sinners! Rosary beads and Bibles are more likely to be the treasured possessions of the poverty-stricken rather than "Terrorism 101" manuals. To commit acts of terror like those perpetuated against us on 9/11 (and like those committed non-stop in Israel), one must possess evil in their heart AND money in the bank.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 9, 2004 20:18:03 GMT -5
Despite how this may have looked to you, there is no excitement or jubilation at the thought of killing people – most specifically innocent people – in war. Some American soldiers might like the big bang of a bomb going off – but it’s not b/c they are hoping that people are dying. Quite the contrary, our military makes every effort possible to avoid killing innocent people in battle (even to the point of putting our soldiers in danger by doing so). We’ve invested millions upon millions of dollars to create weaponry that will be accurate so as not to cause loss of innocent life. Problem is – when fighting someone like Saddam, it’s hard to fight a clean battle when the maniac was using innocent people as human shields. This was a favorite tactic of his – he did this when he invaded Kuwait. This is something so contrary -- so totaly opposite from the psyche of American people, yet it is the U.S. that gets lambasted by many others in the world! How ironic. We love and appreciate our “war heros”, because we appreciate the sacrifice they have made to protect us and their country. Pat Tillman, a professional American football player, turned down a 9 million dollar contract to continue playing football, in order to join the Army Rangers so he could fight to defend his country after 9/11. He died recently in Afghanistan in a terrorist ambush. Pat Tillman didn’t have to make the choice he did . . . . this is the type of American war hero we admire and love – those who are willing to lay down their lives to protect their people back home. It is these type of people that are a truer reflection of the American heart and soul (not the actions of those i d i o t s who are now in trouble for mistreating Iraqi prisoners). Self-sacrifice, charitable, protective, and yes -- confident (even if it’s seen as “arrogance). I’m sorry you don’t know what it is to feel that type of military pride . . . . Guess not – not on this issue, at least. What?? This somehow means that outward protesting or marching as a sign of unified opposition to terrorists actions, or dictatorial regimes somehow isn’t warranted because "everybody would agree with [us]"?? The terrorists, tyrants, and those who agree with/support them wouldn’t agree with us! I’m glad to hear that – but as you indicate, there have only “been a few”. They have obviously not drawn crowds to the extent that Anti-American or Anti-British protests have. And they definitely didn’t get glorified media time! Now why is that? Again, "world" anger is misplaced. If the world would unite behind the concept of getting rid of terrorists, and seeking to eliminate brutal tyrannical regimes (instead of saving its energy for screaming only at the group of nations that seek to deal with the problems), then perhaps it would be pretty impossible for terrorist groups to flourish and for dictatorships to survive! Okay – I’ll take out the word “whole”. Trust me, there are plenty of people in this country (including myself) who “keep their eyes open for the bad things”; despite what you may think, being “Pro-American”, doesn’t automatically mean someone has “lost themselves” in the goodness of our country. It just means that we don’t consider our country to be on the same level as those like Hitler -- and we're disgusted with anyone who attempts to make such an untrue comparison. And disagreement with other nations in the world who don’t support our actions to protect ourselves, also does not mean we (as Americans) don’t have our eyes open for the bad things. Our country was constructed in such a manner with checks and balances in place, and the express freedoms to self-criticize, that it would be impossible for our nation to descend to the same realm as that of a systematic slaughtering-of-innocents dictatorship. You take care – and GOOD LUCK on your exams! I’m thinking about ya! Boy, do I remember those days! And I don’t miss them one bit!! (Well, except for the part about being younger!) ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 9, 2004 23:41:03 GMT -5
No Name, I have just elected you as our national history teacher. But before classes begin, do get some sleep! inatent
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 10, 2004 3:58:02 GMT -5
National history teacher:
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 10, 2004 4:01:11 GMT -5
I am tired with all this hype of no name with terrorism. Can you pleaase tell us WHO trained bin Laden in and the al Queda in unorthodox, guerilla warfare to ensure they combatted the Soviets ?
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 10, 2004 4:16:18 GMT -5
and
Could the above apply to the Americans ?
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 10, 2004 7:57:18 GMT -5
Do you by any chance remember which country (or countries) set the UN up in the first place and with what purpose ?
The rest of the quote was «To add to this argument, it would be more acceptable for the US to act unilateraly if it had signed the International Court's juridisdiction for crimes against humanity. But it did not - even pushed other states not to sign this international treaty ». Any coment on this ??
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 10, 2004 10:32:30 GMT -5
;D ;D Yeah – I’m sorry about your vision problems. Let me know how the doctor appointment goes. I’m sure glad I didn’t let you lead me into that ditch! ;D If you’re so tired, then stop participating in this thread! And terrorism is no “hype”. So does this somehow justify that he purposefully seeks to kill innocent people?! What kind of mentality is that?? Good grief -- what a typical Blame-America-First comment! BTW, the U.S. was helping Afghanistan to repel a Soviet invasion, and in so doing prevented Communist expansion. Our problem in Afghanistan was that we left that country too quickly after the battle was over; we should have helped rebuild their country, which was devastated from fighting the attempted Communist invasion. It became the perfect breeding ground for tyrannical people to take control -- and a very safe haven for terrorists to congregate. You know – it's clear that you seem to be pretty gleeful that the U.S. is under attack by madmen, but I’m glad that nations are justified, according to scripture, in going after such creeps. Romans 13: 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. * The forerunner of the UN was the League of Nations, which ceased its activities after failing to prevent WWII * The name “United Nations”, coined by President Franklin Roosevelt, was first used during WWII, when representatives from 26 nations pledged their governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers. * Today, the UN spends more than $10 billion each year and has become a tool for Anti-American, Anti-Semitic, and Anti-Democratic tyrannies Too bad the lesson wasn’t learned from the failure of the League of Nations, an organization conceived in similar circumstances during the first World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." Something that's pretty clear – both the League of Nations and the UN failed at that goal. For all of the above reasons I already gave about the UN! Couldn’t you just see it! Despite so-called “safeguards” in the ICC treaty, I’ve a strong feeling the U.S. and Israel would be one of the first targets of the “International Court’s” wrath. In addition to that, countries such as China, Cuba, North Korea, Libya, Burma, Iraq, etc., refused to sign the ICC Treaty. Why should the U.S. (or any other peaceful/free country) bind itself in subjection to an entity that won’t even have jurisdiction over the countries that actually need to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity?!
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 10, 2004 12:57:48 GMT -5
Obviously you did not get the irony in my comments ... you blind teacher.
So you admit that you trained the terrorists and that the US was responsible (at least partly) for the mess in Afganistan. This is progress non name. This is progress ...
Madmen trained by the US and released in nature - who now obviously turn against their educators. And the justification in the scripture for war by Christians is rather far-fetched. I was a 2x2 and the workers urged us to be consientious objectors. Now how come an American 2x2 finds justification fir war in the Bible ? But maybe the 2x2 movement being led by Americans and Canadians want to create consientious objectors in other countries for obvious reasons ...
In fact both the League of Nations and the UN were American creations - only because they served the US interests at the time. When they ceased to serve them they are no more useful and must be abolished.
So you admit that the US is part of this nice company of creepy nations. Again congratulations for your progress no name. At last you seem to understand what the US is all about - more so under the current administration.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 10, 2004 13:45:15 GMT -5
Yeah, actually I did -- but then, your eyesight probably didn’t enable you to read my post clearly . . . The more you post, the more your own apparent lack of visual clarity and extreme bias towards the U.S. shows. We did not train the “terrorists”. There were terrorists long before OBL, and there are new terrorist groups now. This is not because we helped Afghanistan repel a Communist invasion; it is because of the nature of these people. (Which has nothing to do with anything we have done; it is because of who we are, and their hatred of us because of that.) We should have stayed in Afghanistan to help stabalize the country. The first Bush should have helped the Iraqi people's attempted uprising against Saddam in 1991 and Clinton should have helped them in the mid-90s. Both were afraid of the international reaction if they did help. The UN should have been stronger about making Iraq abide by its cease-fire agreement after the First Gulf war. Now we have to deal with the problem. None of this – absolutely NONE of this is any justification for the intentional slaughter of innocent people that happened on 9/11 (or any other terrorist act they have committed). If you truly don't agree with this, then you are really not as “peaceful” as you are trying to make yourself sound here . . . Wrong yet again – there were terrorists long BEFORE the U.S. helped Afghanistan. And we didn’t ingrain in them the justification for intentionally murdering innocent people. Your ridiculous attempts to level blame at the U.S. for what happened to us on 9/11 are futile, and they only serve to display your real twisted sentiments against our country. And why do you keep bringing up “2&2"? As I said, my positions are shared by other people who have never even heard of the “workers” and “friends”. And I find justification for war in the Bible, because there is justification for it in the scriptures. I’m not even going to get into a debate about that one again; my arguments regarding that issue are on the main board. Actually, they were the creation of multiple nations. The failures of the League of Nations and the UN to maintain world peace has nothing to do with your comment about them “ceasing” to serve the U.S. They ceased to serve the world, by having no spine in the face of murderous dictators and regions of violence. Pure and simple. Sorry if you don’t accept that fact. You know, you really should go have your eyesight checked out, or you might hurt yourself! You’re sounding desperate now . . . ;D The U.S. refused to sign the farce called the ICC treaty (and urged other nations to refuse as well) because the organization shows signs of being just as ineffective in dealing with crimes against humanity as the League of Nations and the UN.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 10, 2004 15:10:09 GMT -5
Oh, No Name, you poor thing; you just aren't getting the message! You see, when the United States (including all its citizens of course, just because we are here) tries to establish the United Nations, it is a baaaaad thing. If the United States (as represented by any of its citizens) wants to amend or eliminate the United Nations, it is a baaaaad thing. If the United States (as represented by its politicians) tries to help Afghanistan avoid communism, it is a baaaaad thing. If the United States (represented later by different politicians) pulls out of Afghanistan too soon or too late, it is a baaaad thing! If the United States (represented by a President of the wrong party) gets mad at people who want to kill us and goes after them, it is a baaaaad thing. You see, dear, no matter which side we are on, it is really baaaad, because the United States is totally eeeeeeevil to the bone, and there is nothing that can be done about it, but for us to abolish our killing force and just sit back and wait the for gooooood terrorists to destroy us so everyone can be happy again! Get it? inatent
|
|
|
Post by Taking note on May 10, 2004 15:48:13 GMT -5
To ha: Your clear disdain towards the USA is almost as abhorrent as the hatred terrorists have expressed towards the USA. Whether or not it matters to you, your opinions could be expressed without your meaningless use of words like "dear" and "baby" as directed towards no name. To no name: Your polite, patient, informative part in these discussions, particularly with ha, has been appreciated
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 11, 2004 2:57:03 GMT -5
Spain Refused Request to Hunt Iraq Leader Mon May 10,10:40 AM ET MADRID, Spain - U.S. commanders in Iraq asked Spanish forces to help hunt down or kill a religious leader, but Spain refused, saying its mission was humanitarian, the defense minister said Monday. Minister Jose Bono did not specify if he was referring to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has led an insurgency against the U.S.-led occupation and is wanted by coalition forces, or say when the request was made. "Occupying countries can wage offensive actions," Bono told a news conference. He said, however, that Spain — as part of the U.S.-led coalition — was not an occupying force. For that reason, he said, Madrid could not "take part in offensive actions and therefore we said flat-out that we were not willing to hand in, as we were asked at one point, alive or dead, a certain religious leader." He spoke a day after visiting the 1,000 Spanish troops in Iraq who are packing up material used by 1,300 now-departed colleagues who took part in the U.S.-led occupation. Bono said the operation is moving along well and the troops may be home a few days earlier than May 27 as originally scheduled. He said U.S. troops will take over the Spanish base in the south-central city of Diwaniyah some time between May 13-15. The commander of Spanish troops in Iraq, General Enrique de Ayala, told the radio station Cadena Ser that the United States asked Spanish forces to wage offensive actions in April. "Our mandate from the government was to carry out a mission of stabilization and humanitarian aid," de Ayala said. "The equipment we brought was conceived for that mission and we did not receive word of any change in mandate to wage large-scale operations." Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose Socialist party won March 14 general elections, ordered the Spanish troop withdrawal saying he saw no sign that his terms for keeping them there beyond June 30 would be met. Those conditions were that the United Nations assume military and political control of the occupation. Zapatero said last week he would not send troops back to Iraq even if the United Nations passed a resolution creating a multinational force. (Associated Press) From story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&ncid=732&e=9&u=/ap/20040510/ap_on_re_eu/spain_iraqNow this is a nice position !
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 11, 2004 3:03:17 GMT -5
I know, I know - I am a terrorist and a Communist and will go to Hell. And the US will make sure that I go because I simply do not agree with the lies no name and millions of Americans believe in.
As for the position of inatent I find it very childish and naive and typical of somebody who does not question the propaganda about the wars the US has waged in the last decades to support its interests all over the world. Now supporting ones interests is not bad in the first place, but one must have the courage to admit it - rather than believe that the US is the most «humanitarian», «democracy-seeking», «Christian» nation on earth ...
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 11, 2004 5:38:19 GMT -5
I know, I know - I am a terrorist and a Communist and will go to Hell. And the US will make sure that I go because I simply do not agree with the lies no name and millions of Americans believe in. As for the position of inatent I find it very childish and naive and typical of somebody who does not question the propaganda about the wars the US has waged in the last decades to support its interests all over the world. Now supporting ones interests is not bad in the first place, but one must have the courage to admit it - rather than believe that the US is the most «humanitarian», «democracy-seeking», «Christian» nation on earth ... Now I begin to understand the reason you choose the name "ha". You can't be so preposterous and yet serious. It is all a joke, right? You want us to laugh at you. hahahahaha inatent
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 11, 2004 10:07:08 GMT -5
Oh, No Name, you poor thing; you just aren't getting the message! You see, when the United States (including all its citizens of course, just because we are here) tries to establish the United Nations, it is a baaaaad thing. If the United States (as represented by any of its citizens) wants to amend or eliminate the United Nations, it is a baaaaad thing. If the United States (as represented by its politicians) tries to help Afghanistan avoid communism, it is a baaaaad thing. If the United States (represented later by different politicians) pulls out of Afghanistan too soon or too late, it is a baaaad thing! If the United States (represented by a President of the wrong party) gets mad at people who want to kill us and goes after them, it is a baaaaad thing. You see, dear, no matter which side we are on, it is really baaaad, because the United States is totally eeeeeeevil to the bone, and there is nothing that can be done about it, but for us to abolish our killing force and just sit back and wait the for gooooood terrorists to destroy us so everyone can be happy again! Get it? inatent Yes, Inatent – I get it exactly; it’s quite easy to recognize such virulent viewpoints. To ha: Your clear disdain towards the USA is almost as abhorrent as the hatred terrorists have expressed towards the USA. I know, I know - I am a terrorist and a Communist and will go to Hell. And the US will make sure that I go because I simply do not agree with the lies no name and millions of Americans believe in. Well, your continued egregious comments and obvious contempt for the U.S. has definitely led to such a logical conclusion. Your particular posts extend far beyond mere criticism, but have descended into the realm of what Taking note described above – an attitude of such hatred that is just about as despicable as the hatred and actions of the terrorists themselves. You may not be someone who would physically participate in such actions, but the sentiments that are very obvious in your posts seem quite indicative of someone who despises the U.S. to such a degree that they are not particularly troubled (but are perhaps even gleeful?) about the current war against the fanaticism and evil of terrorism. So clouded is your own vision, you seem to think a lie is the truth, and the truth is a lie. You should really make that vision appointment right away. As for the position of inatent I find it very childish and naive and typical of somebody who does not question the propaganda about the wars the US has waged in the last decades to support its interests all over the world. Now supporting ones interests is not bad in the first place, but one must have the courage to admit it - rather than believe that the US is the most ««humanitarian»», ««democracy-seeking»», ««Christian»» nation on earth ... Inatent is only taking note of the way your own posts are coming across. That’s not “childish” or “naive”. And how do you presume that because Inatent (or anyone else) “supports” and understands the war on terror/war on Iraq this means he does not or has never questioned U.S. actions in past decades. You really should think twice before hurling out such comments. And go see that eye doctor. Now I begin to understand the reason you choose the name "ha". You can't be so preposterous and yet serious. It is all a joke, right? You want us to laugh at you. hahahahaha inatent Inatent – I am wondering the very same thing . . . . So, let’s laugh! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! ;D ;D ;D Laughter is good medicine, anyway!
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 11, 2004 10:14:00 GMT -5
Here are the jokes ... by the joking fellow ... Of course being so joking a fellow WITH the possibility to launch nuclear war on the whole planet is not a big joke ... but you support him, you elected him, so we can have a laugh ... or two !
"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country." - George W. Bush
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." - George W. Bush
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'." - Governor George W. Bush
"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future." - Governor George W. Bush
"The future will be better tomorrow." - Governor George W. Bush
"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world." - Governor George W. Bush
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." - Governor George W. Bush
"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe." - Governor George W. Bush
"Public speaking is very easy." - Governor George W. Bush
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls." - Governor George W. Bush
"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur." - Governor George W. Bush
"For NASA, space is still a high priority." - Governor George W. Bush
"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children." - Governor George W. Bush
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." - Governor George W. Bush
"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system." - Governor George W. Bush
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California."
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
"What I am against is quotas. I am against hard quotas, quotas they basically delineate based upon whatever. However they delineate, quotas, I think, vulcanize society. So I don't know how that fits into what everybody else is saying, their relative positions, but that's my position."
"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign."
"We must all hear the universal call to like your neighbor like you like to be liked yourself."
"The most important job is not to be Governor, or First Lady in my case."
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 11, 2004 10:37:55 GMT -5
Here are the jokes ... by the joking fellow ... Of course being so joking a fellow WITH the possibility to launch nuclear war on the whole planet is not a big joke ... but you support him, you elected him, so we can have a laugh ... or two ! Yes, Bush’s clear lack of eloquence is quite a good source of humor. ;D But he’s no “buffoon”, so don’t “misunderestimate” him!
|
|
|
Post by junia on May 11, 2004 11:47:15 GMT -5
Reading through the list of qoutes attributed to George Bush makes me wonder how many of them are actually true and without distortion.
I'd be willing to bet that most of them are not 100% accurate, and some if not many of them outright fabrications. I guess we'll never know and mostp people believe what they want to believe or what is easy to believe.
|
|
Mission accomplished
Guest
|
Post by Mission accomplished on May 11, 2004 13:17:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 11, 2004 13:25:49 GMT -5
"We don't conquer countries -- we rebuild them." Japan, Germany, Vietnam, Afganstan, Iraq - we've done a damn fine job! Now go find some pictures that prove my point. What you posted only proves your negative bias, but it still does not diminish the truth of my original quote. Sorry. But since many people react emotionally to pictures without always knowing the full story, it's always so inflammatory to show pictures of destruction and nothing else, isn't it? Attempts to provoke conclusions based solely on one-sided visual images (and not the complete "picture") don't fly with me -- especially since I know better . . . . nice try.
|
|