Presidential Elections 2004

GoldenGundam · Post by **GoldenGundam** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:18 pm

KhayotiK wrote:I'm republican, and my strength in that only grew whilst listening and watching the democrats, then hearing people who came back say how much it hurt their moral to see protesters. I heard they'll be going back in august or september, also, and it's gonna be great hearing more bitching.

I hate this thread already.

Thats how I am to, except I find the bitching hippie democrats very annoying and I would love to see a stop in it.

Simpi · Post by **Simpi** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:42 am

sixstop wrote: so. . .you think they should find something in a state the size of texas within about 2~3 months?

boy, you must know something the rest of us dont. . .

Just as a side mention. Powell did go and say we know Hussein has like 3000 tons of sarin, 5000 litres of mustard gas and whatnot (ok, I don't have exact figures but you get the idea). I mean, the guy had a complete list of Iraqi arsenal. Would appear logical that he also knew where some of was stored after such a profound listing, something might be found on those places (at least traces).
(umm...he moved them to Syria or destroyed them just before we attacked. Anyway, he is very naughty man....)

So, what BushCo has is:

Two trailers that among other things, can be used for weather balloon launching.

Some junk somebody buried in his backyard nearly 12 years ago and what even according to Rumsfeld, is not a smoking gun.

I quess they'll soon put out an AK-47 as WMD......

But they are drumming the humanitarian reason of it all 'so how dare you to critisise Bush when got rid of a nasty dictator'.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:53 am

Simpi wrote:I quess they'll soon put out an AK-47 as WMD......

The state of Washington already <a href="http://www.komotv.com/news/story.asp?ID=24449">tried to beat them to that punch</a>

.

Simpi · Post by **Simpi** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:53 am

kthulhu wrote:
Simpi wrote:btw, isn't it strange that Rumsfeld is suddenly pretty keen to get UN aid & even peacekeepers? Now, why should they help US out of this mess?
Because, if they don't, it just shows the UN to be a petty organization, more concerned with politics than doing the "good for humanity" that's supposed to be one of their ideals or whatnot. Does it suck that the US went in to Iraq for no real reason (no major WMD finds yet, and I don't recall Iraqi liberation being high on the agenda during the selling of this war)? Most certainly. Does the fact that the US did it without UN approval (like any country needs that to wage war) make it OK for the UN to not help out with humanitarian aid? I'd say, no.

Invading Iraq was bad in many respects - witholding aid, though, because the UN feels out out, would just be cold blooded.

As for peacekeepers, god only knows that the US (and other countries) have plenty of them in Kosovo - a battle which should've been handled by the EU, in my opinion, and perhaps should not have been even fought at all. Putting some in Iraq isn't going to hurt the UN's already shaky grasp on conflict containment.

Humanitarian aid is a good thing, that we can both agree. However, should it (and peacekeepers) be 'with no strings attached'. Bush walked over UN so should they play the hardball too and demand responsibility for rebuilding? I mean, BushCo & IMF (which is also in Iraq) have pretty dismal track record of nation building and Iraqis would probably, nay, they would be more friendly to UN officials.

As of Kosovo, don't worry, my friend is already there and EU will probably soon take over there. They have 100% responsibility in Macedonia and will expand to other balkan countries.

btw, I don't know your views there (but I can quess) but Europeans still see UN as viable organisation.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:19 am

Simpi wrote:Humanitarian aid is a good thing, that we can both agree. However, should it (and peacekeepers) be 'with no strings attached'.

I would say yes. Otherwise, if the UN wants to play pick and choose over what crises they will provide aid for, they should juststick to natural disasters, nothing war-related.

Simpi wrote:Bush walked over UN so should they play the hardball too and demand responsibility for rebuilding? I mean, BushCo & IMF (which is also in Iraq) have pretty dismal track record of nation building and Iraqis would probably, nay, they would be more friendly to UN officials.

The UN, if it wants to be fair, objective, and true to its mission to help humanity, shouldn't withold aid. Especially if they were so concerned with the Iraqi populace before the war.

UN peacekeepers often receive just as much fire as US GIs, and can be less equipped to deal with it. I imagine some of the more observant Iraqis might also be pissed off at the UN over the Security Council <a href="http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sa ... nctions</a> that created a lot of havoc. As for the UN doing a better job than the US, that could be <a href="http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1995/ ... html">open for debate</a>.

Simpi wrote:As of Kosovo, don't worry, my friend is already there and EU will probably soon take over there. They have 100% responsibility in Macedonia and will expand to other balkan countries.

That'd be nice, certainly. I personally don't approve of using US National Guard troops for overseas peacekeeping.

Simpi wrote:btw, I don't know your views there (but I can quess) but Europeans still see UN as viable organisation.

The concept of the UN was a good one, but I just see a mostly impotent organization, trying to pass an agenda off on the world (and thankfully mostly failing).

I wonder how much it'd hurt if the US completely pulled out of the UN and the EU took over...

Alucard_FoN · Post by **Alucard_FoN** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 3:22 am

Besides, everyone always talks about how evil Saddam Hussein was, and I don't disagree. Does anyone truly believe that a man that evil wouldn't have launched any WMD's he had at us when he saw he was about to lose? Jesus, if I was an evil dictator, and I had WMD's, and another country decided to invade me, and I was about to lose, I'd launch every single bomb I had at them just out of spite.

KhayotiK · Post by **KhayotiK** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 3:38 am

What, you think he's dead?

Alucard_FoN · Post by **Alucard_FoN** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 2:04 pm

No, but he's surely fled the country. I say if he had even 1 WMD, he woulda launched it as he fled the country just to do as much damage as he could.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:57 pm

Simpi wrote: Just as a side mention. Powell did go and say we know Hussein has like 3000 tons of sarin, 5000 litres of mustard gas and whatnot (ok, I don't have exact figures but you get the idea). I mean, the guy had a complete list of Iraqi arsenal. Would appear logical that he also knew where some of was stored after such a profound listing, something might be found on those places (at least traces).

Yes, too bad we had to tell the whole world first that we knew he had these things before going in, thus giving him plenty of time to scatter and hide them.

So, what BushCo has is:

Two trailers that among other things, can be used for weather balloon launching.

Some junk somebody buried in his backyard nearly 12 years ago and what even according to Rumsfeld, is not a smoking gun.

two trailers with laboratory equipment and biohazard equipment useful for doing exactly what we worried about. guess thats not good enough for some.

I quess they'll soon put out an AK-47 as WMD......

Dunno if thats supposed to be sarcastic or not, but Iraqi citizens were allowed by the US to keep their ak47 and most semi automatic firearms & rifles. Only explosives were outlawed.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 8:23 pm

sixstop wrote:Dunno if thats supposed to be sarcastic or not, but Iraqi citizens were allowed by the US to keep their ak47 and most semi automatic firearms & rifles. Only explosives were outlawed.

And ironically enough, you can't do that in California

.

I think his point was that the people searching for WMDs will be so desperate to find any, they'll start classifying small arms as them.