Given the billions and billions of dollars the US is spending because of this war inside Iraq and elsewhere, we clearly didn't go to war to give contracts to our favorite companies here in the US. The net result would be negative. Because of that, it wasn't a factor in deciding to go to war. It would've been much easier and safer to just hand out 200 Billion dollars inside the US than start a war, ask for money, hire your companies for reconstruction, and give them the money.
Just a dose of common sense.
The logic in the paragraph is just backwards.
The net result of the tax cuts were a negative. That didn't stop Bush from signing them because they still shifted a lot of money from people he doesn't care about to people he does.
The war, while costly, shifts a lot of money to people Bush cares about. From arms makers to the Haliburtons. It's also a very costly drill to battle test our weapons, the only way to improve them. So, the costs are for a lot of reasons, and get spread out to a great many people.
Lastly, it wouldn't be 'easier and safer' to hand out 200 Billion, it would have to be disguised as something like tax cuts or...a war.
Maybe because it's a useless organization that worries more about where tobacco leaves are being grown than taking care of the real problems in the world, e.g. ruthless totalitarinist dictators that mass murder, torture, gas, their own people, flying into their neighbors airspace and firing missiles, building up your forces along your neighbors borders threatening to invade, and a slew of other things that are considered to be "bad".
Or maybe, because the only spine the UN has is already in Iraq doing the peacekeeping.
The net result of the tax cuts were a negative. That didn't stop Bush from signing them because they still shifted a lot of money from people he doesn't care about to people he does.
The war, while costly, shifts a lot of money to people Bush cares about. From arms makers to the Haliburtons. It's also a very costly drill to battle test our weapons, the only way to improve them. So, the costs are for a lot of reasons, and get spread out to a great many people.
Lastly, it wouldn't be 'easier and safer' to hand out 200 Billion, it would have to be disguised as something like tax cuts or...a war.
You're right, but in those examples the monies, e.g. tax cuts, are going to the people in the US. While some of the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq is going to his favorite companies like Halliburton, I'm sure with all the log rolling and back scratching that goes on inside our government it would've been easier to just go to congress and say, "Hey, I want to give my buddies billions of dollars." and every representive in congress would say, "Okay, but only if you give money to my favorite companies." Dividing up 200 Billion dollars that way seems to be easier than the war thing and would appear to jumpstart the economy more effectively than taking a large chunk of that 200 Billion and sending it over to another nation.
Maybe I'm wrong, though. Afterall, I'm no economist.
I don't remember all the figures. I'm just guesstimating based on what I remember Bush asking right after the war and what he's asking for now. I remember he asked for something like 60 Billion after the fall of Baghdad and now he's asking for 87 Billion. That's 147 Billion estimate and you know the government will probably come back some years hence and ask congress for more.
I also remember Paul Bremer being interviewd and he made a comment that they were going through about 1 billion a month.
Now, I don't understand all the technicalities of where this money is going or how, if we have 60 Billion initially, that we could run out so quickly at spending only 1 billion a month.
X X there's a bit more to that issue than simply watching CNN showing US officials and Iraqi opposition.
If you would ask Iraqi on the streets about it, you would get a little different response, and sure they are fed propaganda just as you are, but it's not as simple. Better yet, Eastern Europe, How many people would like to have their old system back?, even if that means some form of repression.
Ruthless dictators are not as ruthless and 'dictating' as you think
(and i know, as i used to live under such regime)
Quote:
flying into their neighbors airspace and firing missiles,
Oh i'm sorry, and what US is doing to enforce no-fly zone, how about Israel, please....
Quote:
building up your forces along your neighbors borders threatening to invade
Korea, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, all these nations have forces near their borders. Why don't US go and tell them about wonderful world of democracy and US-style culture?
Quote:
Or maybe, because the only spine the UN has is already in Iraq doing the peacekeeping
bunge's right, unfortunately war means huge business to 'winners' and great return of investment, especially when you invest in your own economy...
I really don't want to elaborate on that, it's just too much...
just think about one example(related to tech sector), All cell phones will be using CDMA, only country in a region, dying technology...
Go check who are contracted companies, billions of $$ in revenue, all american technology, services, equipment, for years to come...
there's an interview with fromer ambassador Joseph Wilson...
"On July 6th of this year he wrote an OpEd column in the New York Times in which he described a trip he made to Niger in the spring of 2002 to investigate claims that the country had agreed to sell uranium to Iraq. This week he commented on the latest developments in Iraq in San Jose Mercury News. "
He was asked by the CIA to go to Niger and check into claims that Uranium was sold or that Iraq was tried to acquire Uranium from Niger.
The Interview is very in depth... very informative... it also shows how complex the world is... and what an important job diplomats have.
Essentially he reported back that it was virtually impossible for Iraq to have acquired Uranium from Niger... an international consortium runs the business... includes france and japan...
So when those 16 words went into the State of the Union... they already knew it was a lie... they just ignored Wilson's report.
X X there's a bit more to that issue than simply watching CNN showing US officials and Iraqi opposition.
If you would ask Iraqi on the streets about it, you would get a little different response, and sure they are fed propaganda just as you are, but it's not as simple. Better yet, Eastern Europe, How many people would like to have their old system back?, even if that means some form of repression.
Ruthless dictators are not as ruthless and 'dictating' as you think
(and i know, as i used to live under such regime)
Maybe you missed April 9th? Anyway, perhaps you forgot your own question that you asked, "Why UN has no role in peacekeeping?" The above response was to why they have no peacekeeping role. If they were busy with the real problems of the world, then the US wouldn't have had to step up and do what they did. Since the UN is more concerned about trivial matters during times like these then some country has to step up and take matters into their own hands and pick and choose their battles. Obviously, there are ways in which the actions of Saddam directly affected the US, and so obviously the US has a good reason for taking him on.
Of course there are other nations that need to be dealt with. That's the role of the UN, which they clearly aren't doing anything about. Given the fact that many of the other nations actions aren't a potential harm to the US, it's not the US's duty to spend the blood and money to do the UN's dirty work.
Given the billions and billions of dollars the US is spending because of this war inside Iraq and elsewhere, we clearly didn't go to war to give contracts to our favorite companies here in the US. The net result would be negative. Because of that, it wasn't a factor in deciding to go to war. It would've been much easier and safer to just hand out 200 Billion dollars inside the US than start a war, ask for money, hire your companies for reconstruction, and give them the money.
I don't remember all the figures. I'm just guesstimating based on what I remember Bush asking right after the war and what he's asking for now. I remember he asked for something like 60 Billion after the fall of Baghdad and now he's asking for 87 Billion. That's 147 Billion estimate and you know the government will probably come back some years hence and ask congress for more.
I also remember Paul Bremer being interviewd and he made a comment that they were going through about 1 billion a month.
Now, I don't understand all the technicalities of where this money is going or how, if we have 60 Billion initially, that we could run out so quickly at spending only 1 billion a month.
These are not donations, you know, that's INVESTMENT, mostly in US, or in US business abroad.
Maybe you missed April 9th? Anyway, perhaps you forgot your own question that you asked, "Why UN has no role in peacekeeping?" The above response was to why they have no peacekeeping role. If they were busy with the real problems of the world, then the US wouldn't have had to step up and do what they did. Since the UN is more concerned about trivial matters during times like these then some country has to step up and take matters into their own hands and pick and choose their battles. Obviously, there are ways in which the actions of Saddam directly affected the US, and so obviously the US has a good reason for taking him on.
Of course there are other nations that need to be dealt with. That's the role of the UN, which they clearly aren't doing anything about. Given the fact that many of the other nations actions aren't a potential harm to the US, it's not the US's duty to spend the blood and money to do the UN's dirty work.
So are you saying that un should invade sovereign nations based on BS evidence?
I thought un inspectors were in Iraq to determine that...
Anyway from Syria's point of view US poses a great threat to them, maybe they should invade us? US has womd, nukes, all that sh**t..
Oh wait these are just for keeping world peace.
I think Zimbabwe may hide something, let's get them too!
UN failed, no doubt about it, by letting US do what they want.
UN failed, no doubt about it, by letting US do what they want.
It tried.
There was no way in hell the Security Council were going to let it happen. Not even Mexico. So the second resultion was scrapped and the US / UK blamed the French. From the UK, a singular act of betrayal. Typical Bush though.
So, they blamed the French and called the UN 'irrelevant' ... only now they need us and we're not irrelevant any more.
There was no way in hell the Security Council were going to let it happen. Not even Mexico. So the second resultion was scrapped and the US / UK blamed the French. From the UK, a singular act of betrayal. Typical Bush though.
So, they blamed the French and called the UN 'irrelevant' ... only now they need us and we're not irrelevant any more.
I agree, but UN should keep their inspectors in Iraq, keep their personnel there, continue working. They backed down.
But you are right they tried, and i as a person watching this nonsense unfold, appreciate it.
So are you saying that un should invade sovereign nations based on BS evidence?
I thought un inspectors were in Iraq to determine that...
Anyway from Syria's point of view US poses a great threat to them, maybe they should invade us? US has womd, nukes, all that sh**t..
Oh wait these are just for keeping world peace.
I think Zimbabwe may hide something, let's get them too!
UN failed, no doubt about it, by letting US do what they want.
No, I'm saying the UN shouldn't allow leaders of nations stay leaders of nations when they're actions violate the UN's own idea of human rights and other moral ideas. The UN should be the world's police force, and just like any police force in a country, when people commit a crime you do something to prevent that person from committing a crime again. Whether the UN removes people from power or whether the UN just sticks their tongue out, they should do something to stop that nation/leader from doing the crime again.
All your sarcastic remarks are in reference to WMD. As I said earlier, I don't think we went to war because of WMD regardless of what our government said. I never fell for that excuse. That was just the excuse the government could come up with to get the American people on it's bandwagon. So, the issue of WMD is a moot point as to why we should "get Zimbabwe". Who cares if countries have WMD? But if Zimbabwe is hiding something they're not supposed to have, that is an issue the UN should take care of as I've been saying this whole discussion with you. I'll repeat: The UN needs to do more about policing and enforcing their own policies. Had they done that, then the US never would've invaded Iraq.
Maybe Syria should try and invade us if they feel that way. How successful do you think they'll be?
X X, look at Afghanistan, what happened, how come we don't hear too much about it anymore?
It must be all good now right?
how about these prisoners held in Cuba... that's all 'legal' and humane right?
We don't care anymore.... what a f***** world we live in...
I don't quite remember the relevance of Afghanistan to this discussion, but no, not everything in Afghanistan is peachy. I believe the reason we don't hear about Afghanistan anymore is because the media doesn't think it's newsworthy. I blame the media. The only thing the media cares about is getting the hottest story out at any cost. It appears that the media also only cares about bad news, thinking the public doesn't care about good news.
I dropped my jaw last night when I actually saw on iwon's page a positive news story coming out of Iraq. The only ones you hear about are US soldiers being killed, US soldiers accidentally killing some innocent Iraqis. Why don't they also report on the good things in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're are some, you know. I get tired of constantly reading the bad press, and want to know what positive things are happening, so I found these websites...
No, I'm saying the UN shouldn't allow leaders of nations stay leaders of nations when they're actions violate the UN's own idea of human rights and other moral ideas. The UN should be the world's police force, and just like any police force in a country, when people commit a crime you do something to prevent that person from committing a crime again. Whether the UN removes people from power or whether the UN just sticks their tongue out, they should do something to stop that nation/leader from doing the crime again.
All your sarcastic remarks are in reference to WMD. As I said earlier, I don't think we went to war because of WMD regardless of what our government said. I never fell for that excuse. That was just the excuse the government could come up with to get the American people on it's bandwagon. So, the issue of WMD is a moot point as to why we should "get Zimbabwe". Who cares if countries have WMD? But if Zimbabwe is hiding something they're not supposed to have, that is an issue the UN should take care of as I've been saying this whole discussion with you. I'll repeat: The UN needs to do more about policing and enforcing their own policies. Had they done that, then the US never would've invaded Iraq.
Maybe Syria should try and invade us if they feel that way. How successful do you think they'll be?
X X, for f*** sake, if US would stop barking and accept UN solution things would be different now.
If you didn't believe in WOMD as a reason, then why are u supporting your government? After being lied to! What IS the reason in your opinion for all that mess? Not money, not WOMD, so what?
Don't tell me you believe it's about Iraqi's lives and liberating them from this horrible, horrible monster ruling them with his iron fist...
Why are you thinking of UN as one body and US as another, US is a part of UN, and they should LISTEN, not just go wave their gun saying f*** you all we'll do it with you or without you.
X X, for f*** sake, if US would stop barking and accept US solution things would be different now.
If you didn't believe in WOMD as a reason, then why are u supporting your government? After being lied to! What IS the reason in your opinion for all that mess? Not money, not WOMD, so what?
Don't tell me you believe it's about Iraqi's lives and liberating them from this horrible, horrible monster ruling them with his iron fist...
Why are you thinking of UN as one body and US as another, US is a part of UN, and they should LISTEN, not just go wave their gun saying f*** you all we'll do it with you or without you.
In very simple terms, I supported the war because I think the world is better off without Saddam in power. Please tell me you can see some good things coming out of him not being in power. If you can't then I believe your mind is too closed to have a reasonable discussion with.
I can accept that our government made mistakes. I can accept things possibly should've been done a different way. But I can't accept that the world would be better off with a man like Saddam in power.
There are many reasons why Saddam should not be in power. I'm certain you can come up with some. Whether you agree with the method for removing him is a different argument.
There are pretty much two questions that need to be asked about events in the world: How should things be? And if they aren't that way, how do you make them so?
Iraq shouldn't have Saddam in power. Now, how do you make that happen? It applies to world hunger. Human rights abuses. Diseases.
BTW, I look at the UN and US as two separte entities because if they were one, then the UN would be going to war when the US said they were. They didn't, the US did, so I view that as two discrete entities that made they're independent decisions.
There are good news, sure, but my point is that it's a mess, there is no independent government, conditions are not at all better, etc...
It is a mess, and I think our government screwed up in the aftermath. We're great at starting wars and winning them, but the cleanup afterwards, we need some serious tutoring. Also, though, I believe that it will take time for things to truly get better. It's not an overnight thing. Now, if a couple of years from now in Iraq we are where we are today, then I'm going to be really disappointed in our government. This is one area I believe a Democratic president would do much better than bush and so I hope Clark wins in 2004.
I'm still rather disappointed about the slow progress in Afghanistan, but given the derelict conditions of the entire nation, I expect those problems to take longer to fix. Again, I believe a democratic president would do more for Afghanistan than Bush is.
Comments
Originally posted by X X
Given the billions and billions of dollars the US is spending because of this war inside Iraq and elsewhere, we clearly didn't go to war to give contracts to our favorite companies here in the US. The net result would be negative. Because of that, it wasn't a factor in deciding to go to war. It would've been much easier and safer to just hand out 200 Billion dollars inside the US than start a war, ask for money, hire your companies for reconstruction, and give them the money.
Just a dose of common sense.
The logic in the paragraph is just backwards.
The net result of the tax cuts were a negative. That didn't stop Bush from signing them because they still shifted a lot of money from people he doesn't care about to people he does.
The war, while costly, shifts a lot of money to people Bush cares about. From arms makers to the Haliburtons. It's also a very costly drill to battle test our weapons, the only way to improve them. So, the costs are for a lot of reasons, and get spread out to a great many people.
Lastly, it wouldn't be 'easier and safer' to hand out 200 Billion, it would have to be disguised as something like tax cuts or...a war.
Originally posted by piwozniak
Why UN has no role in peacekeeping?
So many questions...
Maybe because it's a useless organization that worries more about where tobacco leaves are being grown than taking care of the real problems in the world, e.g. ruthless totalitarinist dictators that mass murder, torture, gas, their own people, flying into their neighbors airspace and firing missiles, building up your forces along your neighbors borders threatening to invade, and a slew of other things that are considered to be "bad".
Or maybe, because the only spine the UN has is already in Iraq doing the peacekeeping.
Originally posted by bunge
The logic in the paragraph is just backwards.
The net result of the tax cuts were a negative. That didn't stop Bush from signing them because they still shifted a lot of money from people he doesn't care about to people he does.
The war, while costly, shifts a lot of money to people Bush cares about. From arms makers to the Haliburtons. It's also a very costly drill to battle test our weapons, the only way to improve them. So, the costs are for a lot of reasons, and get spread out to a great many people.
Lastly, it wouldn't be 'easier and safer' to hand out 200 Billion, it would have to be disguised as something like tax cuts or...a war.
You're right, but in those examples the monies, e.g. tax cuts, are going to the people in the US. While some of the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq is going to his favorite companies like Halliburton, I'm sure with all the log rolling and back scratching that goes on inside our government it would've been easier to just go to congress and say, "Hey, I want to give my buddies billions of dollars." and every representive in congress would say, "Okay, but only if you give money to my favorite companies." Dividing up 200 Billion dollars that way seems to be easier than the war thing and would appear to jumpstart the economy more effectively than taking a large chunk of that 200 Billion and sending it over to another nation.
Maybe I'm wrong, though. Afterall, I'm no economist.
Originally posted by piwozniak
Show me
(edited to add quote formating)
I don't remember all the figures. I'm just guesstimating based on what I remember Bush asking right after the war and what he's asking for now. I remember he asked for something like 60 Billion after the fall of Baghdad and now he's asking for 87 Billion. That's 147 Billion estimate and you know the government will probably come back some years hence and ask congress for more.
I also remember Paul Bremer being interviewd and he made a comment that they were going through about 1 billion a month.
Now, I don't understand all the technicalities of where this money is going or how, if we have 60 Billion initially, that we could run out so quickly at spending only 1 billion a month.
ruthless totalitarinist dictators,
X X there's a bit more to that issue than simply watching CNN showing US officials and Iraqi opposition.
If you would ask Iraqi on the streets about it, you would get a little different response, and sure they are fed propaganda just as you are, but it's not as simple. Better yet, Eastern Europe, How many people would like to have their old system back?, even if that means some form of repression.
Ruthless dictators are not as ruthless and 'dictating' as you think
(and i know, as i used to live under such regime)
flying into their neighbors airspace and firing missiles,
Oh i'm sorry, and what US is doing to enforce no-fly zone, how about Israel, please....
building up your forces along your neighbors borders threatening to invade
Korea, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, all these nations have forces near their borders. Why don't US go and tell them about wonderful world of democracy and US-style culture?
Or maybe, because the only spine the UN has is already in Iraq doing the peacekeeping
bunge's right, unfortunately war means huge business to 'winners' and great return of investment, especially when you invest in your own economy...
I really don't want to elaborate on that, it's just too much...
just think about one example(related to tech sector), All cell phones will be using CDMA, only country in a region, dying technology...
Go check who are contracted companies, billions of $$ in revenue, all american technology, services, equipment, for years to come...
ehh whatever.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
there's an interview with fromer ambassador Joseph Wilson...
"On July 6th of this year he wrote an OpEd column in the New York Times in which he described a trip he made to Niger in the spring of 2002 to investigate claims that the country had agreed to sell uranium to Iraq. This week he commented on the latest developments in Iraq in San Jose Mercury News. "
He was asked by the CIA to go to Niger and check into claims that Uranium was sold or that Iraq was tried to acquire Uranium from Niger.
The Interview is very in depth... very informative... it also shows how complex the world is... and what an important job diplomats have.
Essentially he reported back that it was virtually impossible for Iraq to have acquired Uranium from Niger... an international consortium runs the business... includes france and japan...
So when those 16 words went into the State of the Union... they already knew it was a lie... they just ignored Wilson's report.
Originally posted by piwozniak
LOL,
X X there's a bit more to that issue than simply watching CNN showing US officials and Iraqi opposition.
If you would ask Iraqi on the streets about it, you would get a little different response, and sure they are fed propaganda just as you are, but it's not as simple. Better yet, Eastern Europe, How many people would like to have their old system back?, even if that means some form of repression.
Ruthless dictators are not as ruthless and 'dictating' as you think
(and i know, as i used to live under such regime)
Maybe you missed April 9th? Anyway, perhaps you forgot your own question that you asked, "Why UN has no role in peacekeeping?" The above response was to why they have no peacekeeping role. If they were busy with the real problems of the world, then the US wouldn't have had to step up and do what they did. Since the UN is more concerned about trivial matters during times like these then some country has to step up and take matters into their own hands and pick and choose their battles. Obviously, there are ways in which the actions of Saddam directly affected the US, and so obviously the US has a good reason for taking him on.
Of course there are other nations that need to be dealt with. That's the role of the UN, which they clearly aren't doing anything about. Given the fact that many of the other nations actions aren't a potential harm to the US, it's not the US's duty to spend the blood and money to do the UN's dirty work.
Originally posted by X X
Given the billions and billions of dollars the US is spending because of this war inside Iraq and elsewhere, we clearly didn't go to war to give contracts to our favorite companies here in the US. The net result would be negative. Because of that, it wasn't a factor in deciding to go to war. It would've been much easier and safer to just hand out 200 Billion dollars inside the US than start a war, ask for money, hire your companies for reconstruction, and give them the money.
Just a dose of common sense.
The money was supposed to come from oil.
The country wasn't going to collapse.
It wasn't supposed to be so expensive.
It's a **** up.
More common sense.
Originally posted by X X
I don't remember all the figures. I'm just guesstimating based on what I remember Bush asking right after the war and what he's asking for now. I remember he asked for something like 60 Billion after the fall of Baghdad and now he's asking for 87 Billion. That's 147 Billion estimate and you know the government will probably come back some years hence and ask congress for more.
I also remember Paul Bremer being interviewd and he made a comment that they were going through about 1 billion a month.
Now, I don't understand all the technicalities of where this money is going or how, if we have 60 Billion initially, that we could run out so quickly at spending only 1 billion a month.
These are not donations, you know, that's INVESTMENT, mostly in US, or in US business abroad.
Nothing's free..
Originally posted by X X
Maybe you missed April 9th? Anyway, perhaps you forgot your own question that you asked, "Why UN has no role in peacekeeping?" The above response was to why they have no peacekeeping role. If they were busy with the real problems of the world, then the US wouldn't have had to step up and do what they did. Since the UN is more concerned about trivial matters during times like these then some country has to step up and take matters into their own hands and pick and choose their battles. Obviously, there are ways in which the actions of Saddam directly affected the US, and so obviously the US has a good reason for taking him on.
Of course there are other nations that need to be dealt with. That's the role of the UN, which they clearly aren't doing anything about. Given the fact that many of the other nations actions aren't a potential harm to the US, it's not the US's duty to spend the blood and money to do the UN's dirty work.
So are you saying that un should invade sovereign nations based on BS evidence?
I thought un inspectors were in Iraq to determine that...
Anyway from Syria's point of view US poses a great threat to them, maybe they should invade us? US has womd, nukes, all that sh**t..
Oh wait these are just for keeping world peace.
I think Zimbabwe may hide something, let's get them too!
UN failed, no doubt about it, by letting US do what they want.
Originally posted by Harald
The money was supposed to come from oil.
The country wasn't going to collapse.
It wasn't supposed to be so expensive.
It's a **** up.
More common sense.
I agree.
Originally posted by piwozniak
UN failed, no doubt about it, by letting US do what they want.
It tried.
There was no way in hell the Security Council were going to let it happen. Not even Mexico. So the second resultion was scrapped and the US / UK blamed the French. From the UK, a singular act of betrayal. Typical Bush though.
So, they blamed the French and called the UN 'irrelevant' ... only now they need us and we're not irrelevant any more.
It must be all good now right?
how about these prisoners held in Cuba... that's all 'legal' and humane right?
We don't care anymore.... what a f***** world we live in...
Originally posted by Harald
It tried.
There was no way in hell the Security Council were going to let it happen. Not even Mexico. So the second resultion was scrapped and the US / UK blamed the French. From the UK, a singular act of betrayal. Typical Bush though.
So, they blamed the French and called the UN 'irrelevant' ... only now they need us and we're not irrelevant any more.
I agree, but UN should keep their inspectors in Iraq, keep their personnel there, continue working. They backed down.
But you are right they tried, and i as a person watching this nonsense unfold, appreciate it.
Originally posted by piwozniak
So are you saying that un should invade sovereign nations based on BS evidence?
I thought un inspectors were in Iraq to determine that...
Anyway from Syria's point of view US poses a great threat to them, maybe they should invade us? US has womd, nukes, all that sh**t..
Oh wait these are just for keeping world peace.
I think Zimbabwe may hide something, let's get them too!
UN failed, no doubt about it, by letting US do what they want.
No, I'm saying the UN shouldn't allow leaders of nations stay leaders of nations when they're actions violate the UN's own idea of human rights and other moral ideas. The UN should be the world's police force, and just like any police force in a country, when people commit a crime you do something to prevent that person from committing a crime again. Whether the UN removes people from power or whether the UN just sticks their tongue out, they should do something to stop that nation/leader from doing the crime again.
All your sarcastic remarks are in reference to WMD. As I said earlier, I don't think we went to war because of WMD regardless of what our government said. I never fell for that excuse. That was just the excuse the government could come up with to get the American people on it's bandwagon. So, the issue of WMD is a moot point as to why we should "get Zimbabwe". Who cares if countries have WMD? But if Zimbabwe is hiding something they're not supposed to have, that is an issue the UN should take care of as I've been saying this whole discussion with you. I'll repeat: The UN needs to do more about policing and enforcing their own policies. Had they done that, then the US never would've invaded Iraq.
Maybe Syria should try and invade us if they feel that way. How successful do you think they'll be?
Originally posted by piwozniak
X X, look at Afghanistan, what happened, how come we don't hear too much about it anymore?
It must be all good now right?
how about these prisoners held in Cuba... that's all 'legal' and humane right?
We don't care anymore.... what a f***** world we live in...
I don't quite remember the relevance of Afghanistan to this discussion, but no, not everything in Afghanistan is peachy. I believe the reason we don't hear about Afghanistan anymore is because the media doesn't think it's newsworthy. I blame the media. The only thing the media cares about is getting the hottest story out at any cost. It appears that the media also only cares about bad news, thinking the public doesn't care about good news.
I dropped my jaw last night when I actually saw on iwon's page a positive news story coming out of Iraq. The only ones you hear about are US soldiers being killed, US soldiers accidentally killing some innocent Iraqis. Why don't they also report on the good things in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're are some, you know. I get tired of constantly reading the bad press, and want to know what positive things are happening, so I found these websites...
http://www.afghanistannews.net/
http://www.centcom.mil/
http://www.usaid.gov/index.html
http://www.iraq-today.com/index.html
Regards!
BTW, I have to leave to go do some things for the day, so I won't be able to respond.
Originally posted by X X
No, I'm saying the UN shouldn't allow leaders of nations stay leaders of nations when they're actions violate the UN's own idea of human rights and other moral ideas. The UN should be the world's police force, and just like any police force in a country, when people commit a crime you do something to prevent that person from committing a crime again. Whether the UN removes people from power or whether the UN just sticks their tongue out, they should do something to stop that nation/leader from doing the crime again.
All your sarcastic remarks are in reference to WMD. As I said earlier, I don't think we went to war because of WMD regardless of what our government said. I never fell for that excuse. That was just the excuse the government could come up with to get the American people on it's bandwagon. So, the issue of WMD is a moot point as to why we should "get Zimbabwe". Who cares if countries have WMD? But if Zimbabwe is hiding something they're not supposed to have, that is an issue the UN should take care of as I've been saying this whole discussion with you. I'll repeat: The UN needs to do more about policing and enforcing their own policies. Had they done that, then the US never would've invaded Iraq.
Maybe Syria should try and invade us if they feel that way. How successful do you think they'll be?
X X, for f*** sake, if US would stop barking and accept UN solution things would be different now.
If you didn't believe in WOMD as a reason, then why are u supporting your government? After being lied to! What IS the reason in your opinion for all that mess? Not money, not WOMD, so what?
Don't tell me you believe it's about Iraqi's lives and liberating them from this horrible, horrible monster ruling them with his iron fist...
Why are you thinking of UN as one body and US as another, US is a part of UN, and they should LISTEN, not just go wave their gun saying f*** you all we'll do it with you or without you.
Originally posted by piwozniak
X X, for f*** sake, if US would stop barking and accept US solution things would be different now.
If you didn't believe in WOMD as a reason, then why are u supporting your government? After being lied to! What IS the reason in your opinion for all that mess? Not money, not WOMD, so what?
Don't tell me you believe it's about Iraqi's lives and liberating them from this horrible, horrible monster ruling them with his iron fist...
Why are you thinking of UN as one body and US as another, US is a part of UN, and they should LISTEN, not just go wave their gun saying f*** you all we'll do it with you or without you.
In very simple terms, I supported the war because I think the world is better off without Saddam in power. Please tell me you can see some good things coming out of him not being in power. If you can't then I believe your mind is too closed to have a reasonable discussion with.
I can accept that our government made mistakes. I can accept things possibly should've been done a different way. But I can't accept that the world would be better off with a man like Saddam in power.
There are many reasons why Saddam should not be in power. I'm certain you can come up with some. Whether you agree with the method for removing him is a different argument.
There are pretty much two questions that need to be asked about events in the world: How should things be? And if they aren't that way, how do you make them so?
Iraq shouldn't have Saddam in power. Now, how do you make that happen? It applies to world hunger. Human rights abuses. Diseases.
BTW, I look at the UN and US as two separte entities because if they were one, then the UN would be going to war when the US said they were. They didn't, the US did, so I view that as two discrete entities that made they're independent decisions.
I have to go. Nice talking with you.
Originally posted by piwozniak
There are good news, sure, but my point is that it's a mess, there is no independent government, conditions are not at all better, etc...
It is a mess, and I think our government screwed up in the aftermath. We're great at starting wars and winning them, but the cleanup afterwards, we need some serious tutoring. Also, though, I believe that it will take time for things to truly get better. It's not an overnight thing. Now, if a couple of years from now in Iraq we are where we are today, then I'm going to be really disappointed in our government. This is one area I believe a Democratic president would do much better than bush and so I hope Clark wins in 2004.
I'm still rather disappointed about the slow progress in Afghanistan, but given the derelict conditions of the entire nation, I expect those problems to take longer to fix. Again, I believe a democratic president would do more for Afghanistan than Bush is.