Bush's anouncement

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 2:57 pm

Just a last thing, I'm sure a lot of you will find it maybe "stupid" but with the money (several billions $) spent to send the US army in Iraq, Bush could have developed/improved the Social Security cover that more than 50% of the american people are lacking, or save hundreds of thousands of people from dying due to famina in Africa, or this money could have been used to send medecines in those countries... It was just another reason why there are so many people against a war...

...

contrary to your understanding, except for military salaries, military funds are spent years in advance here from previous budgets.

also, despite other forms of government around the world, it is not an altogether popular idea to dump more money into a failing government program such as social security BEFORE its cleaned up.

Also, Bush has already sent bills to be considered by legislation to send support to Africa to fight Aids, though it wont be up for vote for some time.

and as far as anti american. . .and america being perceived as bullies, maybe you should ask why your government was using the European Union as a chip to keep other european countries in line with its view if they wanted membership? Even your president threatened them, and this was months ago::. "The candidate countries, honestly, I feel they behaved with a certain thoughtlessness," the French president said. "If people start giving their points of view independently of all dialogue with the unit one is seeking to join, it is not very responsible behavior."

This is why Americans have respect for TOny Blair. Despite browbeating from popular vote in that area, he has maintained his instestinal fortitude, and he is really the reason we can go and free Iraq now. He was jumping up and down about Saddam and Iraq since CLinton's days in office, but he knew dealing with Clinton was shakey at best, since he was too busy lying, cheating on his wife, and making inept treaties with terrorist and militaristic regimes (north korea).

Ependa · Post by **Ependa** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 4:09 pm

contrary to your understanding, except for military salaries, military funds are spent years in advance here from previous budgets.

So you're saying the money to send the army in Iraq was spent years in advance, before Bush was elected???

Also, Bush has already sent bills to be considered by legislation to send support to Africa to fight Aids, though it wont be up for vote for some time.

That wasn't the point.. I haven't said bush did nothing.. I just wanted to say that the money used to spend the army in Iraq could have been used in a better way to help people...

and as far as anti american. . .and america being perceived as bullies, maybe you should ask why your government was using the European Union as a chip to keep other european countries in line with its view if they wanted membership? Even your president threatened them, and this was months ago::. "The candidate countries, honestly, I feel they behaved with a certain thoughtlessness," the French president said. "If people start giving their points of view independently of all dialogue with the unit one is seeking to join, it is not very responsible behavior."

Don't see any offense in it, but I must admit I don't really understand what you mean and what is it for. Could you clarify it, please?

If that means that a government (at least in a democracy) should act without regarding what the population is thinking, then I must disagree.. He has to make decisions, but when the majority of the population disagrees with it, it means somewhere something goes wrong, maybe it hasn't been correctly explained to the population, or the decision has to be revised..

Hmm, sorry I've just understood (at least I guess) what you ment. Well may I have your sources about the fact that chirac threatened other eurpean countries if they didn't have the same opinion. I never heard about that, I don't think french media mentioned it..
(But obviously and unfortunately, the french media don't criticize the french government as the american ones don't criticize the american government.)
You shouldn't believe all that the american media say about europe (same for us regarding what is said about the US).
A friend recently arrived in your country, told me some things he heard on cnn regarding the french government. It seems nowaday that the trend is to deform truth to support its own government...
So arguments shouldn't be based one what is said currently by media.
...

Despite browbeating from popular vote in that area, he (tony blair) has maintained his instestinal fortitude, and he is really the reason we can go and free Iraq now.

So you're saying the fact tony blair and bush want to go in Iraq is enough whereas most of the members of the UN and most people in those countries are against an armed solution to the conflict..????

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 4:22 pm

My Bet:

The US wins the war, and stalemates on future foreign diplomacy with France+Germany.

/end

EarthCurrent · Post by **EarthCurrent** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 4:39 pm

Ependa wrote:
contrary to your understanding, except for military salaries, military funds are spent years in advance here from previous budgets.
So you're saying the money to send the army in Iraq was spent years in advance, before Bush was elected???

No what he is saying is that we are spending money to fight in Iraq that hasn't been allocated into our budget expenditures yet-->which is why congress is in a tizzy over Bush's budget as it doesn't discuss the costs of the war.

As military operations are not typically 'planned' into the budget for the upcoming year, the military essentially takes out a loan that will be paid off in later budgets.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 4:42 pm

If our military ran out of money in the middle of a campaign, it would call for the government to step in, like it did in ww2 with material resources drives for rubber, tin, etc. . .

now our military spending is done in advance like an investement. not just in dollars but in resources and manufacturing too.

That wasn't the point.. I haven't said bush did nothing.. I just wanted to say that the money used to spend the army in Iraq could have been used in a better way to help people...

Then you're not thinking. we're doing both. spending money on aid for africa has not affected our ability to strike a dangerous dictators regime.

Its not a question of which is better to us. We do both wherever possible.

Hmm, sorry I've just understood (at least I guess) what you ment. Well may I have your sources about the fact that chirac threatened other eurpean countries if they didn't have the same opinion. I never heard about that, I don't think french media mentioned it..
(But obviously and unfortunately, the french media don't criticize the french government as the american ones don't criticize the american government.)
You shouldn't believe all that the american media say about europe (same for us regarding what is said about the US).

I received this from the BBC, and from Australian news. I'm sure i could confirm it with Mainichi from Japan if i dug hard enough.

and if you dont think american press media criticise the government of america, you haven't read newspapers lately.

A friend recently arrived in your country, told me some things he heard on cnn regarding the french government. It seems nowaday that the trend is to deform truth to support its own government...
So arguments shouldn't be based one what is said currently by media.
...

and this wasnt based on media, this was a direct quote of the president. Just because it was documented in the media doesnt make it based on the media.

So you're saying the fact tony blair and bush want to go in Iraq is enough whereas most of the members of the UN and most people in those countries are against an armed solution to the conflict..????

Diplomacy hasn't worked. Blair realised this towards the beginning of GW's presidency, but still tried his hardest to use the UN knowing the UK couldn't act first.

the other countries opposed have not provided a satifactory response to existing resolutions, nor have they provided any good alternate solutions that satisfy what is wanted. Disarm saddam regime, remove it from power, seize its black market weapons, free the people, install an iraqi government to take control of itself.

no diplomacy currently in place was bringing us closer to this, and with the threat of

a: saddam going on genocide regularly with his own people and using rape police and other scary things
b: is funding of terrorist groups, like hamas
c: his weapons he promised to destroy back in 1991 in "15 DAYS" which he fired on kuwait just yesterday. (still denying he had them in the first place)
d: his attempts to build a nuclear program
e: his regime not BRINGING PROOF to us that the toxic and biological weapons have been destroyed, which is what the UN resolution said. The resolution said nothing about our inspectors going to find them, but that IRAQ had to bring proof to us that they had been destroyed. . . several thousand gallons of BORAX dont just dissappear.
f: invading yet ANOTHER country
g: the possibility of selling weapons to forbidden groups and countries that would use them on other countries.
h: stealing money in the money for oil program that was supposed to be spent on food. instead spent on castles for saddam.

GW and Blair decided, as i said, that an armed conflict aimed at the regime and not the people of Iraq had the least potential for loss of life.

Ependa · Post by **Ependa** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 4:43 pm

hmm, I don't think so:

US wins the war, France, Germany, Russia etc. help US to rebuild Iraq (because economically they want a part and because since they were against a war they have to be present...), and as for Afghanistan, people forget........

still recently (months ago) european people and I'm sure american people, didn't care about what was going on in Iraq. now everybody has an opinion about the war, about the fact that people will die or so.. but in few months or years....

Moreover regarding relationships between US and France+Germany.. you may be right, but it won't last a lot, especially since the next american elections are not that far.
If US stalemates relationships with France.. the country that will be in a weird position will be the UK, they'll be between the european community and the US.....

Anyway, I hope they'll find SH before too many people die...

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 4:45 pm

Currently, the situatuion in Afghan will result in very slow but steady growth.

/end

Mroni · Post by **Mroni** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 5:00 pm

Ependa wrote:
MrOni wrote:No the french need to read about lafayette. And remember about how we are their freinds not thier enemies. One of the sickest things I have ever heard is that the biggest name on germanys surrender agreement is the french general as if he had something to do with it.

To clarify some points, Mr oni, I don't know where and how you heard that french people are anti-american or something like that, and don't like american people.

WilLoW explicitly told you it several times... Moreover, isn't that you who said that France is the real ennemy??

Of course there are some anti-american people in France, as there are anti-french or even anti-american ones in the US.

Our government disagreed with a violent way (ie war) to solve the situation in Iraq. There are several reasons and not all are viable ones (oil companies getting oil from Iraq, weapons sold to Iraqi army several years ago, Chirac on the list for being peace nobel...).

But contrary to what it seems was done in the US or in the UK, french government even if it has also other reasons, followed the population regarding its position against the war. There was more than 80% of the french people against war and contrary to our government, people don't care about oil or old relationship betwwen SH and the french government.

Just a last thing, I'm sure a lot of you will find it maybe "stupid" but with the money (several billions $) spent to send the US army in Iraq, Bush could have developed/improved the Social Security cover that more than 50% of the american people are lacking, or save hundreds of thousands of people from dying due to famina in Africa, or this money could have been used to send medecines in those countries... It was just another reason why there are so many people against a war...

...

If bush sent any of the money he is spending on our military to the retards in africa I would be pissed. Now if he diverted it to the space program I would give him a big thumbs up. What are priorties to you are not priorities at all to me fuck africa.

Mr Oni

Ependa · Post by **Ependa** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 5:29 pm

earthcurrent wrote:
Ependa wrote:
contrary to your understanding, except for military salaries, military funds are spent years in advance here from previous budgets.
So you're saying the money to send the army in Iraq was spent years in advance, before Bush was elected???
No what he is saying is that we are spending money to fight in Iraq that hasn't been allocated into our budget expenditures yet-->which is why congress is in a tizzy over Bush's budget as it doesn't discuss the costs of the war.

As military operations are not typically 'planned' into the budget for the upcoming year, the military essentially takes out a loan that will be paid off in later budgets.

Thank you. Sorry if I misunderstood.

So arguments shouldn't be based one what is said currently by media.
and this wasnt based on media, this was a direct quote of the president. Just because it was documented in the media doesnt make it based on the media. |/quote]
There was no offense in that, it was for me as for everyone else.

I didn't hear chirac saying that but it may totally be true, he was so happy to be the man of the opposition.

Diplomacy hasn't worked. Blair realised this towards the beginning of GW's presidency, but still tried his hardest to use the UN knowing the UK couldn't act first.

the other countries opposed have not provided a satifactory response to existing resolutions, nor have they provided any good alternate solutions that satisfy what is wanted. Disarm saddam regime, remove it from power, seize its black market weapons, free the people, install an iraqi government to take control of itself.
I agree with some of these points, but the fact that Bush decided to go without the UN worries me regarding the next iraqi government.

...

mroni wrote:If bush sent any of the money he is spending on our military to the retards in africa I would be pissed. Now if he diverted it to the space program I would give him a big thumbs up. What are priorties to you are not priorities at all to me fuck africa.
no comment.........

WilLoW :--) · Post by **WilLoW :--)** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 6:48 am

Mroni wrote: What are priorties to you are not priorities at all to me fuck africa.
Mr Oni

Me pukes. You should be ashamed to say things like that. And your thread "no foreigners allowed..."