Fellowship, I'm not asking in this in a rude way, but what's the deal with George W Bush? I've been watching him on the television recently and every time he speaks it looks as if he's just shat himself. This is OK in itself, we've all done it after all, but what unsettles me is that he appears to be secretly pleased that he has soiled his underpants. What's your take on this? Has he actually shat himself? Does the President of the United States of America soil himself every time he appears on television? If so, shouldn't he get help instead of revelling in the texture and scent of his own poopery?
Your thoughts please!
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
[quote]<strong>Oh I get it! We're just going to sort of take them ( and their oil ) under our wing. So to speak.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Take what we did in Afghanistan. Add good economic infrastructure. Subtract regional warlords and terrorist organizations.
What we're going to do is remove Saddam and let them decide what their new government is. Since Saddam will be gone the UN sanctions will be lifted so their economy can grow without outside hinderance. Better economy, better health care and food, better life.
Iraq can be a very nice place (except for the heat and sand).
--
powerdoc:
[quote]<strong>In short, i will say that what Chirac did speaking of these countrie was a unilateral approach in a moral point of vue, but moslty innefective in a technical point of vue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apparently Bush's comments have been pretty ineffective against France as well.
Of course, I think France has a lot more to gain from being oppossed.
[quote]<strong>You are right, but to take a sport analogy, they did it in a particulary smart way. Nobody can complain that US is the only superpower. If people are unhappy with that, they have to look upon their own failures.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Do you think that US is the plastic surgeon of the world ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You look at this wrong. We pursue this so strongly because, after 9/11, we feel threatened by Saddam. I do not expect anyone outside the US to understand that, but even though it's a very small chance there is a possibility that he could do something with chemical/biological weapons to hurt us. France is not at risk, of course, so I do not expect France to understand. For us this is about national security, that is why we will go without the UN. Bush asked the UN first so that everyone could be involved and have a say, and you must admit that Bush has certainly given all nations a voice.
--
bunge:
[quote]<strong>It's a good thing you base your arguments on hard facts and not conjecture and hearsay.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You want hard facts?
Saddam staged a political coup and appointed him dictator-for-life. He keeps dissent quiet through political killings. He thumbs his nose at the UN knowing they won't oust him, so instead they impose brutal economic sanctions that kill his people. Instead of cooperating to save his people he remains belligerent. The economic sanctions, per the UN itself, have cause hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths in Iraq.
Hard facts.
If you can't disagree with what I'm saying it's probably better to just say nothing at all. I know you can't possible admit you're wrong.
If you can't disagree with what I'm saying it's probably better to just say nothing at all. I know you can't possible admit you're wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think war is going to be a lot worse for them than the alternatives.
If you can't stop making snide personal attacks maybe you should say nothing at all? Your attacks have been following me around lately. Too much starch in your collar?
<strong>I think war is going to be a lot worse for them than the alternatives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What alternatives?
Be honest, bunge, it has nothing to do with them in your mind. You have your anti-Bush stance and you'll say whatever you need to to keep in line with it.
Just because I cast an absentee ballot in his favor during the last Iraqi elections doesn't mean I'm "Pro-Saddam"....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
HA! I caught you. We all know he got 100% of the votes!
I know I have fun with the "Pro-Saddam" left thing but IMO anyone that mitigates the terrible history of Saddam and turns a blind eye to it is in fact helping the guy out. The "anti-War" movement does turn a blind eye and at the same time acts against Saddam's biggest critics. The actions of the French at this point in time do more to keep Saddam in power than disarm Iraq. After a while you have to really wonder what these groups are working toward? Is France really trying to keep Saddam in power? Why?
Why wont the "peace" movement take a harsh line on Saddam? Why wont France be the leader for ... maybe ... human rights in Iraq? It seems to just boil down to anti-americanism with a blind eye toward the final result; brutal anti-Semitic dictator with bio/chem/soon nukes fat happy and in charge. Is that what France wants? Is that what the "peace" movement wants? Why? Because it opposes the US? Maybe they should think about the "blowback" of that position.
Be honest, bunge, it has nothing to do with them in your mind. You have your anti-Bush stance and you'll say whatever you need to to keep in line with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It has nothing to do with 'them'? Do you mean Iraqis? You're right, it has not much to do with them for me. The world isn't ready to go after all of the countries that need a regime change so we can't just pick and choose the causes that are economically beneficial.
As a world, we have to be prepared for regeime change for dozens of countries. We can't do that with war. We have to find alternative means for it to work. If it doesn't work, and we don't get the whole world on the democratic band wagon, there will be a nuclear bomb in NY Harbor, or Tel Aviv, or London, or who knows where.
As much as I think the Iraqi people need a regime change, it's wrong to turn our backs on the greater problem because of a 'risk analysis' or 'profit margins' or whatever.
YOU be honest and admit that war isn't how we're going to turn the world into a democracy. YOU admit that if we don't help the world catch up there will be a catastrophy ten times greater than 9/11. YOU need to admit that a war now makes the threats greater in the long run while a diplomatic solution that can ultimately be enforced across the globe solves the long term problem of proliferation of WMD while a war just sweeps in under the rug.
Nice sentiment but in hind site the US couldn't wait for "regime change" in Afghanistan. Many feel that the time is right to force a regime change in Iraq. Many feel it's about 10 years over due.
Also no matter how you spin it this is not about economics.
[quote]<strong>It has nothing to do with 'them'? Do you mean Iraqis? You're right, it has not much to do with them for me. The world isn't ready to go after all of the countries that need a regime change so we can't just pick and choose the causes that are economically beneficial.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Economically beneficial? Who said anything about using that as the criteria?
[quote]<strong>As a world, we have to be prepared for regeime change for dozens of countries. We can't do that with war. We have to find alternative means for it to work. If it doesn't work, and we don't get the whole world on the democratic band wagon, there will be a nuclear bomb in NY Harbor, or Tel Aviv, or London, or who knows where.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, because if we don't try to do it militarily we won't be attacked by terrorists... but wait...
[quote]<strong>As much as I think the Iraqi people need a regime change, it's wrong to turn our backs on the greater problem because of a 'risk analysis' or 'profit margins' or whatever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The risk analysis takes that into account.
[quote]<strong>YOU be honest and admit that war isn't how we're going to turn the world into a democracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What the hell are you talking about? What the administration says? Tell you what, bunge, when you're talking to me address what I say, not what a politician says, ok? Great.
And aside from that, I haven't heard one administration official say we're going to attack every country until the world is all democratic. So what in blue fuck are you talking about? The most I've heard in that vein is that Iraq will be a model for the rest of the middle east.
[quote]<strong>YOU admit that if we don't help the world catch up there will be a catastrophy ten times greater than 9/11.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Catch up with what?
[quote]<strong>YOU need to admit that a war now makes the threats greater in the long run while a diplomatic solution that can ultimately be enforced across the globe solves the long term problem of proliferation of WMD while a war just sweeps in under the rug.</strong><hr></blockquote>
War only makes things more dangerous in the short run. Tell me, bunge, how is a disarmed and Saddam-less Iraq MORE dangerous? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>Nice sentiment but in hind site the US couldn't wait for "regime change" in Afghanistan. Many feel that the time is right to force a regime change in Iraq. Many feel it's about 10 years over due.
Also no matter how you spin it this is not about economics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have no problem with the US moving in on Afghanistan. In Iraq, I was on the fence waiting for some evidence. I'm still waiting. If you only look at what the Iraqi people should have, it's past time. If you look from the US perspective, there's no threat. As an individual nation I think we need more proof before we can act. Maybe it exists behind the scenes, but I doubt it. Russia would gladly abstain if not support a new resolution if there were a credible threat.
And it wasn't I who brought economics into the equation. I think you have to be sick in the head to do so though.
War only makes things more dangerous in the short run. Tell me, bunge, how is a disarmed and Saddam-less Iraq MORE dangerous? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
If only your laughing smiley actually was a good argument, you'd win them all.
Since Iraq isn't a threat now, tell me how war is going to make him less of a threat?
War outside of the UN is going to make the United States a bigger target than it was two years ago. North Korea is proving that point already.
There you go, you hawks have done it again. So the Middle East DOES have a reason to believe we're in a war against Islam, at least Islam in the Middle East. Iraq will be a model for the rest of the middle east. That's rich, really rich. So we ARE going to attack the rest of the MidEast to solve our problems.
<strong>Since Iraq isn't a threat now, tell me how war is going to make him less of a threat?</strong><hr></blockquote>
But Iraq is a threat.
[quote]<strong>War outside of the UN is going to make the United States a bigger target than it was two years ago. North Korea is proving that point already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
War outside of the UN is how the world wages war. 26 shooting wars since the UN was formed. 3 sanctioned by the UN, all 3 brought to the UN by American presidents, 2 of those named Bush.
Those who wish to harm us don't give two shits about whether or not war has UN mandate.
War outside of the UN is how the [United States] wages war.... Those who wish to harm us don't give two shits about whether or not war has UN mandate. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you're on to something here. I think it's past time to start repairing the damage we've done rather than causing more.
<strong>Those who wish to harm us don't give two shits about whether or not war has UN mandate. </strong><hr></blockquote>
If you follow that particular line of reasoning, there is no reason to ever bother with the UN -- not just the UN as it exists now, but any conceivable version of the UN.
One joins an organization like the UN because one believes that law is better than lawlessness, because one is willing to abide by law even when others are not. It's always going to be true that there's someone out there in the world who won't care what the UN thinks. To use this fact as an excuse to go your own way without international cooperation is just another way of saying "every country and every man for himself".
<strong>I think you're on to something here. I think it's past time to start repairing the damage we've done rather than causing more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great idea:
Step One: Oust the brutal dictator of Iraq that we helped to prop up for a number of years and free his people from his regime.
<strong>If you follow that particular line of reasoning, there is no reason to ever bother with the UN -- not just the UN as it exists now, but any conceivable version of the UN.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the UN has many functions outside of the Security Council. It can be a very good thing.
And you can't take that out of context. Between logical and sane men and states the UN is very effective. Dealing with terrorists or madmen, the UN is not effective because it moves slower than a snail and relies on ambiguous diplomacy.
In some situations it is best not to ask the UN. I don't look at the UN as the ultimate authority in the world and in that I question a great deal about the UN. But I don't think it's worthless.
[quote]<strong>One joins an organization like the UN because one believes that law is better than lawlessness, because one is willing to abide by law even when others are not. It's always going to be true that there's someone out there in the world who won't care what the UN thinks. To use this fact as an excuse to go your own way without international cooperation is just another way of saying "every country and every man for himself".</strong><hr></blockquote>
There can be law outside the UN, you place way too much importance on the UN I think. And it's expected because that's what we're constantly told to think. The UN does horribly unjust things, I don't see the moral authority argument being credible.
I can see appealing to the UN and trying to get their help, but I do not see why their refusal should be the end of a subject. Rwanda.
Comments
Your thoughts please!
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
<strong>
They have been doing very very badly for two reasons: 1) Saddam Hussein, 2) economic sanctions. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a good thing you base your arguments on hard facts and not conjecture and hearsay.
<strong>Fellowship, I'm not asking in this in a rude way..</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmm,...
Of-course you?re not. As the tune goes: Smiling faces..
<strong>
It's a good thing you base your arguments on hard facts and not conjecture and hearsay.
I may have to start calling you part of the "Pro-Saddam" left soon.
[quote]<strong>Oh I get it! We're just going to sort of take them ( and their oil ) under our wing. So to speak.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Take what we did in Afghanistan. Add good economic infrastructure. Subtract regional warlords and terrorist organizations.
What we're going to do is remove Saddam and let them decide what their new government is. Since Saddam will be gone the UN sanctions will be lifted so their economy can grow without outside hinderance. Better economy, better health care and food, better life.
Iraq can be a very nice place (except for the heat and sand).
--
powerdoc:
[quote]<strong>In short, i will say that what Chirac did speaking of these countrie was a unilateral approach in a moral point of vue, but moslty innefective in a technical point of vue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apparently Bush's comments have been pretty ineffective against France as well.
Of course, I think France has a lot more to gain from being oppossed.
[quote]<strong>You are right, but to take a sport analogy, they did it in a particulary smart way. Nobody can complain that US is the only superpower. If people are unhappy with that, they have to look upon their own failures.</strong><hr></blockquote>
People complain about it all the time!
<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/kagan.htm"; target="_blank">Here</a> is an excellent article on this very subject. Perhaps you will like it as much as I did. Warning: it is very long.
[quote]<strong>Do you think that US is the plastic surgeon of the world ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You look at this wrong. We pursue this so strongly because, after 9/11, we feel threatened by Saddam. I do not expect anyone outside the US to understand that, but even though it's a very small chance there is a possibility that he could do something with chemical/biological weapons to hurt us. France is not at risk, of course, so I do not expect France to understand. For us this is about national security, that is why we will go without the UN. Bush asked the UN first so that everyone could be involved and have a say, and you must admit that Bush has certainly given all nations a voice.
--
bunge:
[quote]<strong>It's a good thing you base your arguments on hard facts and not conjecture and hearsay.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You want hard facts?
Saddam staged a political coup and appointed him dictator-for-life. He keeps dissent quiet through political killings. He thumbs his nose at the UN knowing they won't oust him, so instead they impose brutal economic sanctions that kill his people. Instead of cooperating to save his people he remains belligerent. The economic sanctions, per the UN itself, have cause hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths in Iraq.
Hard facts.
If you can't disagree with what I'm saying it's probably better to just say nothing at all. I know you can't possible admit you're wrong.
<strong>
Hard facts.
If you can't disagree with what I'm saying it's probably better to just say nothing at all. I know you can't possible admit you're wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think war is going to be a lot worse for them than the alternatives.
If you can't stop making snide personal attacks maybe you should say nothing at all? Your attacks have been following me around lately. Too much starch in your collar?
<strong>
I may have to start calling you part of the "Pro-Saddam" left soon. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Just because I cast an absentee ballot in his favor during the last Iraqi elections doesn't mean I'm "Pro-Saddam"....
<strong>I think war is going to be a lot worse for them than the alternatives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What alternatives?
Be honest, bunge, it has nothing to do with them in your mind. You have your anti-Bush stance and you'll say whatever you need to to keep in line with it.
<strong>
Just because I cast an absentee ballot in his favor during the last Iraqi elections doesn't mean I'm "Pro-Saddam"....
HA! I caught you. We all know he got 100% of the votes!
I know I have fun with the "Pro-Saddam" left thing but IMO anyone that mitigates the terrible history of Saddam and turns a blind eye to it is in fact helping the guy out. The "anti-War" movement does turn a blind eye and at the same time acts against Saddam's biggest critics. The actions of the French at this point in time do more to keep Saddam in power than disarm Iraq. After a while you have to really wonder what these groups are working toward? Is France really trying to keep Saddam in power? Why?
Why wont the "peace" movement take a harsh line on Saddam? Why wont France be the leader for ... maybe ... human rights in Iraq? It seems to just boil down to anti-americanism with a blind eye toward the final result; brutal anti-Semitic dictator with bio/chem/soon nukes fat happy and in charge. Is that what France wants? Is that what the "peace" movement wants? Why? Because it opposes the US? Maybe they should think about the "blowback" of that position.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>
What alternatives?
Be honest, bunge, it has nothing to do with them in your mind. You have your anti-Bush stance and you'll say whatever you need to to keep in line with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It has nothing to do with 'them'? Do you mean Iraqis? You're right, it has not much to do with them for me. The world isn't ready to go after all of the countries that need a regime change so we can't just pick and choose the causes that are economically beneficial.
As a world, we have to be prepared for regeime change for dozens of countries. We can't do that with war. We have to find alternative means for it to work. If it doesn't work, and we don't get the whole world on the democratic band wagon, there will be a nuclear bomb in NY Harbor, or Tel Aviv, or London, or who knows where.
As much as I think the Iraqi people need a regime change, it's wrong to turn our backs on the greater problem because of a 'risk analysis' or 'profit margins' or whatever.
YOU be honest and admit that war isn't how we're going to turn the world into a democracy. YOU admit that if we don't help the world catch up there will be a catastrophy ten times greater than 9/11. YOU need to admit that a war now makes the threats greater in the long run while a diplomatic solution that can ultimately be enforced across the globe solves the long term problem of proliferation of WMD while a war just sweeps in under the rug.
Also no matter how you spin it this is not about economics.
[quote]<strong>It has nothing to do with 'them'? Do you mean Iraqis? You're right, it has not much to do with them for me. The world isn't ready to go after all of the countries that need a regime change so we can't just pick and choose the causes that are economically beneficial.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Economically beneficial? Who said anything about using that as the criteria?
[quote]<strong>As a world, we have to be prepared for regeime change for dozens of countries. We can't do that with war. We have to find alternative means for it to work. If it doesn't work, and we don't get the whole world on the democratic band wagon, there will be a nuclear bomb in NY Harbor, or Tel Aviv, or London, or who knows where.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, because if we don't try to do it militarily we won't be attacked by terrorists... but wait...
[quote]<strong>As much as I think the Iraqi people need a regime change, it's wrong to turn our backs on the greater problem because of a 'risk analysis' or 'profit margins' or whatever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The risk analysis takes that into account.
[quote]<strong>YOU be honest and admit that war isn't how we're going to turn the world into a democracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What the hell are you talking about? What the administration says? Tell you what, bunge, when you're talking to me address what I say, not what a politician says, ok? Great.
And aside from that, I haven't heard one administration official say we're going to attack every country until the world is all democratic. So what in blue fuck are you talking about? The most I've heard in that vein is that Iraq will be a model for the rest of the middle east.
[quote]<strong>YOU admit that if we don't help the world catch up there will be a catastrophy ten times greater than 9/11.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Catch up with what?
[quote]<strong>YOU need to admit that a war now makes the threats greater in the long run while a diplomatic solution that can ultimately be enforced across the globe solves the long term problem of proliferation of WMD while a war just sweeps in under the rug.</strong><hr></blockquote>
War only makes things more dangerous in the short run. Tell me, bunge, how is a disarmed and Saddam-less Iraq MORE dangerous? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>Nice sentiment but in hind site the US couldn't wait for "regime change" in Afghanistan. Many feel that the time is right to force a regime change in Iraq. Many feel it's about 10 years over due.
Also no matter how you spin it this is not about economics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have no problem with the US moving in on Afghanistan. In Iraq, I was on the fence waiting for some evidence. I'm still waiting. If you only look at what the Iraqi people should have, it's past time. If you look from the US perspective, there's no threat. As an individual nation I think we need more proof before we can act. Maybe it exists behind the scenes, but I doubt it. Russia would gladly abstain if not support a new resolution if there were a credible threat.
And it wasn't I who brought economics into the equation. I think you have to be sick in the head to do so though.
<strong>bunge:
War only makes things more dangerous in the short run. Tell me, bunge, how is a disarmed and Saddam-less Iraq MORE dangerous? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
If only your laughing smiley actually was a good argument, you'd win them all.
Since Iraq isn't a threat now, tell me how war is going to make him less of a threat?
War outside of the UN is going to make the United States a bigger target than it was two years ago. North Korea is proving that point already.
<strong> The most I've heard in that vein is that Iraq will be a model for the rest of the middle east. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
There you go, you hawks have done it again. So the Middle East DOES have a reason to believe we're in a war against Islam, at least Islam in the Middle East. Iraq will be a model for the rest of the middle east. That's rich, really rich. So we ARE going to attack the rest of the MidEast to solve our problems.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
That's just really great. And you hawks scoff at the idea that the United States does anything worth getting upset about?
<strong>Since Iraq isn't a threat now, tell me how war is going to make him less of a threat?</strong><hr></blockquote>
But Iraq is a threat.
[quote]<strong>War outside of the UN is going to make the United States a bigger target than it was two years ago. North Korea is proving that point already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
War outside of the UN is how the world wages war. 26 shooting wars since the UN was formed. 3 sanctioned by the UN, all 3 brought to the UN by American presidents, 2 of those named Bush.
Those who wish to harm us don't give two shits about whether or not war has UN mandate.
<strong>
War outside of the UN is how the [United States] wages war.... Those who wish to harm us don't give two shits about whether or not war has UN mandate. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you're on to something here. I think it's past time to start repairing the damage we've done rather than causing more.
<strong>Those who wish to harm us don't give two shits about whether or not war has UN mandate.
If you follow that particular line of reasoning, there is no reason to ever bother with the UN -- not just the UN as it exists now, but any conceivable version of the UN.
One joins an organization like the UN because one believes that law is better than lawlessness, because one is willing to abide by law even when others are not. It's always going to be true that there's someone out there in the world who won't care what the UN thinks. To use this fact as an excuse to go your own way without international cooperation is just another way of saying "every country and every man for himself".
<strong>I think you're on to something here. I think it's past time to start repairing the damage we've done rather than causing more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great idea:
Step One: Oust the brutal dictator of Iraq that we helped to prop up for a number of years and free his people from his regime.
<strong>If you follow that particular line of reasoning, there is no reason to ever bother with the UN -- not just the UN as it exists now, but any conceivable version of the UN.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the UN has many functions outside of the Security Council. It can be a very good thing.
And you can't take that out of context. Between logical and sane men and states the UN is very effective. Dealing with terrorists or madmen, the UN is not effective because it moves slower than a snail and relies on ambiguous diplomacy.
In some situations it is best not to ask the UN. I don't look at the UN as the ultimate authority in the world and in that I question a great deal about the UN. But I don't think it's worthless.
[quote]<strong>One joins an organization like the UN because one believes that law is better than lawlessness, because one is willing to abide by law even when others are not. It's always going to be true that there's someone out there in the world who won't care what the UN thinks. To use this fact as an excuse to go your own way without international cooperation is just another way of saying "every country and every man for himself".</strong><hr></blockquote>
There can be law outside the UN, you place way too much importance on the UN I think. And it's expected because that's what we're constantly told to think. The UN does horribly unjust things, I don't see the moral authority argument being credible.
I can see appealing to the UN and trying to get their help, but I do not see why their refusal should be the end of a subject. Rwanda.