Bush In 30 Seconds

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

I cannot think of anything President Bush has done to be among one of America's least respectable presidents.

 

Started a war based on a lie, tried to cut pay to the soldiers who were fighting his war, tried to cut social security benefits, blatantly ignored the advice of our allies, cut funding to his OWN childrens education act, lowered the clean air standards for our environment........none of these seem very respectable to me, and this is just what i can think of off the top of my head.

 

The President has stated quite clearly that we are fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to prevent having to fight similar battles in the streets of American cities.

 

What terrorists did we fight in Iraq? We weren't killing terrorists, we were killing the troops of Saddam Hussein. Just because we felt the wrath of a terrorist attack does NOT give us the Carte Blanch to assume any country we want has terrorists and we are therefore justified in using military force.

[rccar328]

What terrorists did we fight in Iraq? We weren't killing terrorists, we were killing the troops of Saddam Hussein.

 

Yes...we were killing Hussein's troops. And Hussein's regime was supporting Al-Qaida, who attacked the WTC. This has been substantiated through the Hussein regime's own records. Fighting those who support terrorism is one of many important steps in defeating terrorism.

 

Started a war based on a lie

 

Where does this come from? What lie is this? Just because Ted Kennedy says it doesn't make it true.

 

 

As for cutting education, there seems to be a common misconception that the solution to America's education problem is to throw more and more money at the education system. This is not the solution.

A true solution is to ensure that competent teachers are teaching our children, and that parents step in and take an active role in educating their children.

 

Now, I don't know enough about social security to comment on it...

 

I do know, however, that the Bush administration is actively funding research into hydrogen fuel cell technology for vehicles that will redice, if not eliminate, harmful vehicular exhaust - if he lowered clean air standards in other areas, then I am dissappointed, but any short-term harm resulting from these reductions will be negated by the long-term benefits of this technology.

 

Just because we felt the wrath of a terrorist attack does NOT give us the Carte Blanch to assume any country we want has terrorists and we are therefore justified in using military force.

 

If this were the true heart of the war on terrorism, we would be fighting in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and several other Middle Eastern nations right now. We are fighting to ensure the safety of American lives and to improve the way of life of those people living under religious dictatorships or religiously oppressive governments.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

Yes...we were killing Hussein's troops. And Hussein's regime was supporting Al-Qaida, who attacked the WTC.

 

Bull. The only support for this is the fact that an alledged member of Al-Qaeda visited Iraq and had contact with Iraqi officials.

 

There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that "Iraq/Hussein supported Al-Qaeda." None. Period.

 

If you can provide a proper reference, I'll gladly eat crow.

 

Saddam's government supported Palestinian actions against Jewish targets (i.e. offering monetary compensation for the families of suicide bombers), but this isn't Al-Qaeda, nor are the Palestinians considered a "world terrorist threat."

 

If that were the standard by which we should measure our so-called "Global War on Terror," then we should attack Saudi Arabia as well.

 

First off, the fall of the economy (as has been proven now by several economic studies) began during the Clinton presidency.

 

Perhaps you could provide citations to these "studies."

 

The bottom line is, the ecconomy was in the best shape it had ever been since the Great Depression prior to Bush's term. The Clinton admin tackled the deficit spending problem with great success. The Bush admin has taken deficit spending to heights not seen since the Cold War. The Cold War deficit took nearly 50 years to reach.... Bush did it in less than 4.

 

On tax cuts: that "Trickle-Down" economics concept didn't work during the Reagan years (who truly was one of the greater Presidents, IMO), why should it work in the Bush years?

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

Where does this come from? What lie is this? Just because Ted Kennedy says it doesn't make it true.

 

The entire purpose of invading Iraq was because we knew they had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was an immediate threat to the United states etc. etc.

 

Well, after all the UN specialists didn't find anything and WE haven't found anything even after we invaded.....i'm disinclined to believe in WMD's in Iraq.

[rccar328]

The entire purpose of invading Iraq was because we knew they had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was an immediate threat to the United states etc. etc.

 

In the argument over whether America should have invaded Iraq, this is the lie. Here are the reasons that we have sent troops into Iraq:

 

1. The cease-fire agreement that ended the Persian Gulf War clearly stated that Iraq MUST destroy all of their WMD programs, allow UN inspectors to confirm that those weapons were destroyed, and to provide documentation confirming that fact. This is the only reason Saddam was not removed at that time. Instead of abiding by this agreement, Saddam chose to play games with the UN and kick the inspectors out of Iraq.

 

2. Over the years since the cease-fire agreement, the UN has passed 12 resolutions ordering Saddam to comply with the agreement, condemning Saddam's horrific acts, and attempting to aid the people of Iraq - the 11 outlined in this report and resolution 1441. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2246037.stm)

Saddam repeatedly refused to follow these resolutions, in effect turning the UN into an impotent organization that would not back up its words.

 

3. Our best intellegence on Iraq told us that Saddam did possess WMD, or at the very least active WMD programs, either of which were prohibited under the cease-fire and UN resolutions. If US intelligence was faulty, it was because Saddam would not allow inspectors into Iraq, and when he finally did, our intelligence showed that he was playing hide-and-seek games with the inspectors.

 

4. At the very least, we were justified in invading Iraq and removing Saddam because of his crimes against humanity in torturing, raping, and murdering the civilian population of his country - if Saddam were still in power, as the President has said, Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers would still be in operation and the mass graves would still be being filled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2855139.stm

 

5. President Bush has stated several times that our purpose is to reshape the Middle East from a collection of oppressive religious regimes into a region where freedom through democracy reigns, allowing the people to realize the simple freedoms that we take for granted: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

6. The President clearly stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat - he explicitly stated that it would be a great mistake to wait until Iraq was an imminent threat. Iraq being an imminent threat to America means that Saddam would have a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it to the US. By the time Iraq is an imminent threat, it is too late - we're in another Cold War.

 

 

If nothing I have just written can convince you, then I must come to the conclusion that you have closed your mind on this issue and nothing will ever convince you. Any one of these reasons should be enough to justify sending military forces to Iraq. If you think otherwise, you are not being intellectually honest.

 

 

Saddam's government supported Palestinian actions against Jewish targets (i.e. offering monetary compensation for the families of suicide bombers), but this isn't Al-Qaeda, nor are the Palestinians considered a "world terrorist threat."If that were the standard by which we should measure our so-called "Global War on Terror," then we should attack Saudi Arabia as well.

 

I (partially) agree - one of the things I disagree with the Bush administration on is their stance on Saudia Arabia. I believe that we should be tougher on all nations that support terrorism.

 

There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that "Iraq/Hussein supported Al-Qaeda." None. Period.

 

I read a report during the major hostilities of the war that US troops had raided an Al-Qaida camp inside Iraq - I'm currently trying to track down that report, but it will be difficult, as I do not remember where I read it, or what day. Once again, as soon as I find it, I'll post it.

 

 

First off, the fall of the economy (as has been proven now by several economic studies) began during the Clinton presidency.

 

I read a report on this several weeks ago - I'm working on tracking it down. As soon as I find it I'll post it.

 

 

That's all for now.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

If nothing I have just written can convince you, then I must come to the conclusion that you have closed your mind on this issue and nothing will ever convince you. Any one of these reasons should be enough to justify sending military forces to Iraq. If you think otherwise, you are not being intellectually honest.

 

Ugh, this thread and the voting age thread have become the same thing. My reason for not wanting to send military into Iraq was explained in the voting age thread.....bleh, i say we bring all that debate in here, i mean, this is a bush oriented thread afterall

[Lathain Valtiel]

Excuse me, but David Kay, who HIMSELF thinks there are no significant WMDs in Iraq, has NOT called Bush a liar. Kay has stated in his report that he believes both the Bush and Clinton admins and Britain were fed bad intelligence. In which case our respective intelligence agencies are to blame. You can hardly blame a guy for trying to have faith in our intelligence apparatus.

 

Until you all can read Bush's mind, then I suggest you all cut the bull. You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear around these anti0Bush parts it seems... If you want to blame Bush and be generally biased, be my guest, but don't go around saying others have their head in the sand. I'm looking at you SkinWalker. I think you should cut the subtle insults, it's not very becoming, especially not for a mod of what is supposed to be a civilized debate forum. You have no right to judge people, and I can understand why people would get sick and tired of all the irrational malice directed at Bush, including the subtle kind coming from you. Don't judge lest ye be judged.

[SkinWalker]

In the argument over whether America should have invaded Iraq, this is the lie. Here are the reasons that we have sent troops into Iraq:

 

1. The cease-fire agreement that ended the Persian Gulf War clearly stated that Iraq MUST destroy all of their WMD programs, allow UN inspectors to confirm that those weapons were destroyed, and to provide documentation confirming that fact. This is the only reason Saddam was not removed at that time. Instead of abiding by this agreement, Saddam chose to play games with the UN and kick the inspectors out of Iraq.

 

There are some basic fallacies here. First, Saddam didn't "kick" the UN inspectors out in 1998 as is commonly believed (Ritter, 2003). According to the Chief Weapons Inspector until that time, "the executive chairman of the weapons inspection process, Richard Butler, ordered the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq on the eve of a military campaign, Operation Desert Fox, which was mounted by the United States and Great Britain without Security Council sanction, meaning that it was an illegitimate activity from the standpoint of international law."

 

In addition, Ritter went on to point out that the weapons inspectors documented the elimination of 90 – 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that the remaining 5-10% only was unaccounted for. They had no record of Iraq retaining the weaponry or destroying it. Indeed, they didn't need to worry about the fate of it, since the bulk of this unaccounted weaponry was liquid anthrax. The last agreed upon (by U.S. intelligence sources, etc.) production of liquid anthrax was in 1991. They produced 8.9 thousand liters (not the 25, 000 liters that the Bush admin claimed) and it only has a shelf life of 3 years under ideal conditions.

 

Likewise, the other WMD that kept surfacing in Bush & co. rhetoric was VX nerve agent. The viability of this is only a few days after production. Even I remember that from my NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) training in the Army.

 

The WMD argument is a fallacy.

 

2. Over the years since the cease-fire agreement, the UN has passed 12 resolutions ordering Saddam to comply with the agreement, condemning Saddam's horrific acts, and attempting to aid the people of Iraq - the 11 outlined in this report and resolution 1441. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2246037.stm)

Saddam repeatedly refused to follow these resolutions, in effect turning the UN into an impotent organization that would not back up its words.

 

That reason doesn't fly. It sounds good. It reads good. But it just doesn't work. The reason is that we systematically disregarded the UN's stand on Iraq by invading without UN support. Therefore, the UN resolutions argument is a fallacy. It only creates the question, "why care about a UN resolution if the UN is systematically disregarded?"

 

3. Our best intellegence (sic) on Iraq told us that Saddam did possess WMD, or at the very least active WMD programs, either of which were prohibited under the cease-fire and UN resolutions. If US intelligence was faulty, it was because Saddam would not allow inspectors into Iraq, and when he finally did, our intelligence showed that he was playing hide-and-seek games with the inspectors.

 

The intelligence that Bush & co. wanted to hear told Bush & co. that WMD was a threat. The weapons inspectors did their job. They got results. They destroyed many, many questionable and not-so-questionable agents and weapons. They oversaw the destruction of the same. Saddam didn't want the inspectors back in Iraq because the inspectors were used to gather target intelligence for the 1998 bombing. The sites that a small percentage of the inspectors visited were used to augment the 112 targets. Ritter also stated that 98% of the inspections got full cooperation. The ones that didn't were the ones that involved entry into Presidential security, palaces and intelligence services.

 

As to the "intelligence" that Bush used in his 2003 State of the Union Address, there was already considerable consensus that the "documents" were false. In fact, General Hussein Kamal, an Iraqi defector, refuted one or more of these documents to UNSCOM during his interview with Prof. Zifferero in 1995 (Kamal, 1995). As to the other forged documents that were apparently seen in the U.S. in October 2002, the CIA sent a retired ambassador to Niger to investigate. He found the claims to be false and reported back to the CIA in February. The President's State of the Union address was a full year later. Bush & co.'s contention is that the CIA was sloppy in handling the intelligence (Pincus, 2003). That doesn't add up for two reasons: 1) the CIA lives to gather intelligence and deliver it to those that need it… why send a retired ambassador to investigate then sit on the data? 2) The Director of Central Intelligence is a presidential appointment, not a career position.

 

The U.S. Intelligence argument is a fallacy.

 

4. At the very least, we were justified in invading Iraq and removing Saddam because of his crimes against humanity in torturing, raping, and murdering the civilian population of his country - if Saddam were still in power, as the President has said, Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers would still be in operation and the mass graves would still be being filled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/2855139.stm

 

The majority of Iraq's human rights violations came much earlier in Iraqi history, such as during the 1988 Anfal genocide, in which the Iraqi government slaughtered some 100,000 Kurds. Certainly atrocities were on going, such as the ruthless murder and torture of those that opposed Hussein's authority.

 

But one has to consider: is this different than any of the other tyrannical regimes that exist, even today? What about Robert Mubawe in Zimbabwe? What about the thousands of children enslaved as combatants in Sierra Leone or as active-duty soldiers in Burma? What about the tortures happening today in Uzbekistan? Or the random slaughter of Russian citizens by Russian troops in Chechnya? The list goes on… an on…

 

Human Right's Watch concluded that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not a humanitarian effort and gave some very convincing reasons as well as a fair assessment.

 

The United States has a history of looking on –nay- turning it's head as the poor and deprived of third world countries occurs. Ten years ago in Rwanda, a major genocide occurred. Are you saying that now Bush has drawn a line in the sand and all human rights violations in the world must stop or they will be invaded?

 

The Human Rights argument is a fallacy.

 

5. President Bush has stated several times that our purpose is to reshape the Middle East from a collection of oppressive religious regimes into a region where freedom through democracy reigns, allowing the people to realize the simple freedoms that we take for granted: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Whether they want it or not, right? The neo-conservative movement that appears to have emerged in this country has had it's eye on the Middle East for some time, particularly Iraq. It doesn't take a genius to see the value in having a country, who's oil reserves are eclipsed only by Saudi Arabia, in our bed. Abrams, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and friends (1998) have been after the full invasion of Iraq since at least the Clinton Administration. The events of 9/11 were used as a convenient excuse to execute their plans. Our "plan to reshape" the Middle East will likely have consequences of alienating the Islamic world. The hatred of Islamic fundamentalists toward the West is rooted in what they perceive as a seriously "flawed" value system and support for Israeli occupation and genocide of the Palestinian people. "Democratizing" nations is also not something that the United States has much luck with. A look at the recent histories of Chile and Indonesia will confirm that.

 

6. The President clearly stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat - he explicitly stated that it would be a great mistake to wait until Iraq was an imminent threat. Iraq being an imminent threat to America means that Saddam would have a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it to the US. By the time Iraq is an imminent threat, it is too late - we're in another Cold War.

 

“Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the United Nations. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles [so] that it can inflict mass death throughout the region (Bush, 9/2002)"

 

David Kay reported in his testimony to Congress this past summer that they had " not discovered documentary or material evidence to corroborate these claims [of scud missiles]." None were ever found.

 

"We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States (Bush, 10/2002).”

 

Nope. None found.

 

Of course I need not mention:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa (Bush, 2003)."

 

But what about:

“[W]e do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon (Cheney, 2002)"

 

It seems very clear that the idea that Bush & co. wanted to present was one of a very clear and "imminent" danger. But are you trying to say that all threats that are possible to the United States must be acted upon in preemptive strike in order to eliminate them before they become threats? That gives us a lot of immediate enemies.

 

Therefore your "imminent threat" / preemptive strike argument is a fallacy.

 

If nothing I have just written can convince you, then I must come to the conclusion that you have closed your mind on this issue and nothing will ever convince you. Any one of these reasons should be enough to justify sending military forces to Iraq. If you think otherwise, you are not being intellectually honest.

 

I think that by buying into partisan rhetoric and the above fallacies, anyone would be deficit in intellectual ability or in critical thinking ability at the very least.

 

And to be sure, my own brand of rhetoric isn't partisan. I could care less about a person's political alignments. In the past, I've voted Republican because of economic reasons as well as foreign policy reasons. The current neo-conservative movement that is apparent in today's Republican Party is very dangerous, however. The trends toward reduced civil liberties and hardline stances on foreign policy issues will spend social and political capital that we ought be investing. Moreover, the current economic policies have been shown to be fallible.

 

I (partially) agree - one of the things I disagree with the Bush administration on is their stance on Saudia Arabia. I believe that we should be tougher on all nations that support terrorism.

 

But one must first develop an efficient definition of terrorism. Otherwise, we may have to include certain allies or those with whom we would rather not invade.

 

 

I read a report during the major hostilities of the war that US troops had raided an Al-Qaida camp inside Iraq - I'm currently trying to track down that report, but it will be difficult, as I do not remember where I read it, or what day. Once again, as soon as I find it, I'll post it.

 

I'll save you the time: http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/iraqwar/story/0,4395,180418,00.html. But I hope you will note that in all accounts about this alleged camp, never has the Al-Qaeda link been demonstrated. In fact, there is little to no mention of it by Bush admin officials to this day. It unlikely that the camp was anything more than what it seemed: a training camp for Ansar al-Islam, an Islamic fundamentalist group. Just because they have rags on their heads and hate Western ideals, doesn't make them Al-Qaeda.

 

But did you also note that the camp was in the Kurdish controlled region of Iraq and well within the No-Fly Zone and thus under the control of the U.S. and British forces, not Iraqi.

 

The Al-Qaeda / Iraq link is a fallacy.

 

I read a report on this several weeks ago - I'm working on tracking it down. As soon as I find it I'll post it.

 

Eagerly awaiting. Until then, chew on this: SmartMoney.com.

 

 

Sources:

Abrams, Elliot, et al (1998). Open Letter to President Clinton. Project for the New American Century January 26, 1998.

 

Bush, George W. (9/2002). Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002

 

Bush, George W. (10/2002). Address on Iraq, October 7, 2002

 

Bush, George W. (2003). State of the Union Address.

 

Cheney, Dick (2002). Transcript. Meet the Press, September 8, 2002.

 

Kamal, Hussein (1995). UNSCOM Interview

 

Pincus, Walter (2003). CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data;

Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid. Washington Post, June 12, 2003 Thursday, section A, p. A01.

 

Ritter, Scott (2003). [url= http://traprockpeace.org/glenrangwalaindex.html]International Peace Conference Transcript[/i]. Traprock Peace Center, July 9, 2003.

 

 

Bush must go. Judge me.

[Datheus]

1. The cease-fire agreement that ended the Persian Gulf War clearly stated that Iraq MUST destroy all of their WMD programs, allow UN inspectors to confirm that those weapons were destroyed, and to provide documentation confirming that fact. This is the only reason Saddam was not removed at that time. Instead of abiding by this agreement, Saddam chose to play games with the UN and kick the inspectors out of Iraq.

The UN wrote the resolutions in the first place. They decided how much is too much. Not America.

 

2. Over the years since the cease-fire agreement, the UN has passed 12 resolutions ordering Saddam to comply with the agreement, condemning Saddam's horrific acts, and attempting to aid the people of Iraq - the 11 outlined in this report and resolution 1441. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2246037.stm)

Saddam repeatedly refused to follow these resolutions, in effect turning the UN into an impotent organization that would not back up its words.

Don't point the finger at Iraq rendering the UN impotent. America certainly did not help the situation when it did not heed the word of the UN. And after all, we are America. Our precident is much more impacting than Iraq's.

 

3. Our best intellegence on Iraq told us that Saddam did possess WMD, or at the very least active WMD programs, either of which were prohibited under the cease-fire and UN resolutions. If US intelligence was faulty, it was because Saddam would not allow inspectors into Iraq, and when he finally did, our intelligence showed that he was playing hide-and-seek games with the inspectors.

It did reach the point where it was close to unconditional searches. In the end, if Bush is convinced that a country has weapons and he demands them to be produced, what is said country to do? If you don't, they say you're a liar. If you do, you're in deep ****. It sounds like the Salem Witch Trials to me. America decided who was right and ignored what the UN had to say.

 

4. At the very least, we were justified in invading Iraq and removing Saddam because of his crimes against humanity in torturing, raping, and murdering the civilian population of his country - if Saddam were still in power, as the President has said, Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers would still be in operation and the mass graves would still be being filled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2855139.stm[/b]

Unfortunately, Iraq is not the only country like that. Countries like America are the exception, not the rule. Even in America, we have a rape and murder problem, though it is not government funded. Politics are different from morals. You just can't fight a war based entirely on morals. That's just not how countries can be run.

 

5. President Bush has stated several times that our purpose is to reshape the Middle East from a collection of oppressive religious regimes into a region where freedom through democracy reigns, allowing the people to realize the simple freedoms that we take for granted: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

For granted, indeed. That is why Bush has been able to pass Acts such as the Patriot Act that take away these liberties our troops are supposedly so readily spreading. Nonetheless, why should we force our way of life on the Middle East? The Middle East will become democratic when it is damn good and ready. You can't force it on the people. This has been proven time and time again.

 

6. The President clearly stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat - he explicitly stated that it would be a great mistake to wait until Iraq was an imminent threat. Iraq being an imminent threat to America means that Saddam would have a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it to the US. By the time Iraq is an imminent threat, it is too late - we're in another Cold War.

*cough*

Quote a la Bush

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons, and diseases, and gases, and atomic weapons.

Quote a la Bush

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

That's two quotes, just from the same speech. He sure makes it sound imminent. Not to mention he really puts emphasis on those weapons that don't exsist. Bush is about the only person left saying that they're there. Even Powell isn't so sure anymore. Before they war, they were ready to go. They had that evidence! But where is it all? It certainly looks like deceit to me. We kicked Iraq's ass. Hands down. It was even worse than the first Gulf War. If he was such a threat, why did we find him in a hole in the ground after such non-existant fight?

 

-edit- I was surprised to see you hadn't replied, Skinwalker. I was actually hoping you had, the facts you always seem to have lying around hurts my head. Anyway, I'm sure your post is superior to mine. I'm about to go read it.

[Lathain Valtiel]

The sad part of the entire rant is, if it was at all directed at me, I never even argued against those points, with the recent exception of the faulty intelligence argument, which Kay thinks is what the deal was. You can argue with him if you like.

 

About the UN... Let's face it. America mostly by itself makes the UN potent in the first place with taxpayer dollars. Denying this is impossible.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Datheus

the facts you always seem to have lying around hurts my head.

 

Ahh... I have discovered the power of Lexis-Nexis!

 

Google eats its dust

[Lathain Valtiel]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Ahh... I have discovered the power of Lexis-Nexis!

 

Google eats its dust

 

Remind me to look that up when I have time.

[Datheus]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Ahh... I have discovered the power of Lexis-Nexis!

 

I've heard about it, but I'm just 16. As much as I'd like to, I'm not going to shell out cash for it.

 

Lathain: For the most part, I'd have to agree with you. The US probably does make up the better part of the UN's muscle. However, ideally, just because we have the weight doesn't mean we throw it around...

[Lathain Valtiel]

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing most of the UN dissolved, and what's not dissolved becomes a humanitarian organization, because that's pretty much all the UN is good at in my opinion. (And even then there's black spots, like that one Palestinian humanitarian branch whose handouts are rumored to go to terrorist organizations there.)

[Datheus]

I'm not so sure about that. The world is rapidly becoming more and more interconnected. The lines are definitely blurring. I think we'll need something even more powerful than the UN down the road, even if it is just to set civil / technology standards.

 

Or maybe that's what you mean. I'm very, very tired.

[TheHobGoblin]

People didn't just lose jobs at the day of the attacks. Afterwards the economy suffered, people had to be laid off for a while. Alot of people loss jobs.

 

 

 

Jed, I sent a PM yesterday to Kurgan I think it was, I havent got a response yet though. Once I get my old one I'l request this one to be deleted.

[ShockV1.89]

I loved the end of the animated one. "So, in closing.... terrorist terrorist terrorist... 9-11 9-11. God Bless America. Good night."

 

Priceless!

[SkinWalker]

cool banner ad that popped up next to this thread

 

What a coincidence!

[ET Warrior]

That is quite a coincidence........interesting....

 

Too bad I didn't get that banner...I would've clicked on it.

[Lathain Valtiel]

And this is why I rarely come here anymore... Too many people sounding like Howard Dean.

[TheHobGoblin]

Sometimes I hate coming here. It's just agrevating (sry if I spelt it wrong).

[rccar328]

About the UN... Let's face it. America mostly by itself makes the UN potent in the first place with taxpayer dollars. Denying this is impossible.

 

This is exactly right. Besides, America's action in Iraq is the only reason any UN resolution might ever have meaning. After so many years and so many resolutions, with Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN, they should be thanking the US for sending troops in and giving their words meaning.

 

 

Unfortunately, Iraq is not the only country like that. Countries like America are the exception, not the rule. Even in America, we have a rape and murder problem, though it is not government funded. Politics are different from morals. You just can't fight a war based entirely on morals. That's just not how countries can be run.

 

WHY NOT??? If we see an evil growing in our world, we have a moral obligation to rid the world of that evil if the people of that nation cannot do it on their own. And America does have rape and murder problems, AND WE ARE FIGHTING THOSE PROBLEMS. That's what police forces and court systems are for.

 

Saying that our action in Iraq cannot be justified because Iraq never did anything to us is like saying that America's action against Hitler in WW2 was unjustified because Hitler never did anything to the US. To say that we should have restricted our military operations in WW2 to Japan is folly - Hitler was a growing threat to the world, and the leaders of the time had the intellegence to know that evil must be dealt with, just as radical militant Islam is a growing threat to America, and President Bush & Tony Blair have the foresight and resolve to realize that it must be dealt with.

 

The fact that there are many nations where people are oppressed, raped, tortured and murdered by brutal dictatorial regimes is no justification for letting them continue their evil practices. You say that politics are different from morals, but it is in those societies where politics and morals are separated that we see people like Hitler and Saddam emerge.

 

 

We could restrict our military operations to the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, create perfectly logical reasons for doing so, and go on with our merry lives more worried about how much cash is in our wallets than the moral values that make our society great, but eventually radical Islam will strike. There is no question about this - we have seen the resolve of Islamic militants. All you have to do is look at their goals.

 

Radical Islam does not hate the average American - they hate Hollywood. They hate the immorality that has ravaged our society through promiscuous sex, drugs, homosexuality, sexuality in movies and television, music. They do not hate our people, they hate our culture. They will not stop until every nation in the world has adopted their warped version of Islamic law.

 

This is what it means to reshape the Middle East - to rid the region of the kind of radical Islam that wants to destroy America and all that it stands for (and all of the moral corruption it embodies) and replace it with a hard-line Islamic state.

 

 

Furthermore, to say that these Islamic states will become democratic when they're "damn good and ready" is to buy into a lie. Religious indoctrination has gone on in the Middle East for hundreds of years, and there is no end in sight. These people are living 400 years in the past, and their religious leaders will never allow change.

 

 

In short, we have a choice. We could choose to let well enough alone, give in to the lie that "we don't have the right" to change our world and to defend our way of life, or we could have the moral resolve to do the right thing, stop the religious oppression of these radical Islamic states, share the freedom that we so treasure with other nations, and make our world a better place.

 

It's a simple choice, really - improve our world or let it go down the toilet of radical Islamicism.

[Datheus]

Originally posted by rccar328

WHY NOT??? If we see an evil growing in our world, we have a moral obligation to rid the world of that evil if the people of that nation cannot do it on their own. And America does have rape and murder problems, AND WE ARE FIGHTING THOSE PROBLEMS. That's what police forces and court systems are for.

Yes, we are fighting them. But why not throw the hundreds of billions we've tossed at Iraq at our own domestic problems? Our military is already stretching thin. I said, America is the except, not the rule. You think we can afford to wage moral wars across the world? The fact of the matter is, once the Middle Eastern people (oh, and Africans, Asians, and Southern Americans) are ready to throw off their oppressive regimes, they'll go into full revolt. I would support a war if we were aiding their revolution, but until then, we have no right to act as a catalyst--though we are far from such, a catalyst does not affect the outcome, it merely speeds the process. We are doing both.

Originally posted by rccar328

Saying that our action in Iraq cannot be justified because Iraq never did anything to us is like saying that America's action against Hitler in WW2 was unjustified because Hitler never did anything to the US. To say that we should have restricted our military operations in WW2 to Japan is folly - Hitler was a growing threat to the world, and the leaders of the time had the intellegence to know that evil must be dealt with, just as radical militant Islam is a growing threat to America, and President Bush & Tony Blair have the foresight and resolve to realize that it must be dealt with.

Uh. Hitler was actively dominating Europe. He called his emipre the Third Reich, believing he would be the next great ruler to control the world. Hussein never made any such claims! He couldn't even hold onto Kuwait, let alone all of Europe!

Originally posted by rccar328

The fact that there are many nations where people are oppressed, raped, tortured and murdered by brutal dictatorial regimes is no justification for letting them continue their evil practices. You say that politics are different from morals, but it is in those societies where politics and morals are separated that we see people like Hitler and Saddam emerge.

For the most part, I agree with you. As much as I'd love to spread freedom around the world, it's just not feasible. There are just not enough resources at the disposal of the super powers to go around and attack the large majority of oppresive nations. What happens if Russia does fall backwards? Do you really want to fight a war with North Korea, Saudia Arabia, and Russia? The last couple of times such wars have been attempted, they ended in social disaster (ie, Vietnam and Korea).

Originally posted by rccar328

We could restrict our military operations to the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, create perfectly logical reasons for doing so, and go on with our merry lives more worried about how much cash is in our wallets than the moral values that make our society great, but eventually radical Islam will strike. There is no question about this - we have seen the resolve of Islamic militants. All you have to do is look at their goals.

Yes, and we sit here merrily going about our lives. We for North Korea to strike. They have made their goals clear. Their resolve is definite. They would really like a piece of us. Radical milliant Islam is far from the only threat to America.

Originally posted by rccar328

Radical Islam does not hate the average American - they hate Hollywood. They hate the immorality that has ravaged our society through promiscuous sex, drugs, homosexuality, sexuality in movies and television, music. They do not hate our people, they hate our culture. They will not stop until every nation in the world has adopted their warped version of Islamic law.

Once again, that is not only radical Islam. And can you blame them? We arn't the most scrupulous country in the world. You're playing the Blame Game. You point the finger at radical Islam, saying they are trying to change us, but are we really doing anything different? Bush has mentioned time and time again how he wants to "reshape" the Middle East. How is that not forcing our culture on them? That's why we shouldn't be over there. All it does is create a cycle of blame. Some things are just best left alone.

Originally posted by rccar328

This is what it means to reshape the Middle East - to rid the region of the kind of radical Islam that wants to destroy America and all that it stands for (and all of the moral corruption it embodies) and replace it with a hard-line Islamic state.

You think that's how they feel? Why is it called "reshaping the Middle East". That sounds not happy. Why isn't it called "Killing all the radical millitants". At least then it doesn't sound like we're trying to push our Western culture on them. Besides, it's not our land. We are a democratic country. Why don't we let the people of the Middle East decide for themselves when they reshape their own lands?

Originally posted by rccar328

Furthermore, to say that these Islamic states will become democratic when they're "damn good and ready" is to buy into a lie. Religious indoctrination has gone on in the Middle East for hundreds of years, and there is no end in sight. These people are living 400 years in the past, and their religious leaders will never allow change.

Yeah, and the Roman Catholic Church really planned for the explosion of Protestantism. The unbelievably powerful Roman Catholic Church was just ever so pleased with Martin Luther nailing his grievances against a church door. Change happens.

Originally posted by rccar328

In short, we have a choice. We could choose to let well enough alone, give in to the lie that "we don't have the right" to change our world and to defend our way of life, or we could have the moral resolve to do the right thing, stop the religious oppression of these radical Islamic states, share the freedom that we so treasure with other nations, and make our world a better place.

 

It's a simple choice, really - improve our world or let it go down the toilet of radical Islamicism.

Don't tell me about things going down the toilet. Have you seen the dismal state of American civil liberties? How about the guy who was told the grounds in front of Liberty Hall were a "First-Amendment-free zone". What about that pesky Patriot Act? But forget that, let's just beat the **** out of immigrants! And religious oppression? How about Bush wanting to ban gay marriage? He wants a Constitutional amendment. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the court's job? If they find the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, can't they over-rule it? A Constitutional amendment would be a violation of the First and Ninth Amendments!

 

Yes, we need to protect ourself. I don't argue that point. But is it worth the risk? 200 years ago, people would rather die than lose their liberty.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin1

Sometimes I hate coming here. It's just aggravating

 

Why? Because not everyone sees things just like you do? That's kind of the point of a debate forum.

 

 

 

Though I dont have a whole lot more to say about this topic...as Datheus just really summed up all my points better than I could have put them.

[Datheus]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

Why? Because not everyone sees things just like you do? That's kind of the point of a debate forum.

 

Eh. In the history of the Senate, how many people have changed sides? It is much like talking to a brick wall, no matter what you're debating for. That's why that post there will probably be my last post in the Senate. Skinwalker is much better at it anyway.