• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > USA Presidential Election Coverage 08!

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12345
KaelGotRice
GOLD Member since Jul 2003

KaelGotRice

Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
Location: Angel's Landing, USA

Total posts: 1584
Posted:Primaries are on! Winner will be the representative of their party in the national presidential elections this fall.



Obama takes Iowa for the Democrats!

Huckabee takes Iowa for the Republicans!



Good independent site to browse that covers their issues:

http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm





http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA



GWARRRRRRRRRRRR!



4 days until New Hampshire vote for democrats! and 3 days for Wyoming's republican vote-



Discuss. biggrin


To do: More Firedrums 08 video?
Wildfire/US East coast fire footage
LA/EDC glow/fire footage
Fresno fire

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ubbrollsmile.gif" alt="" />

Delete Topic

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:I don't think anyone is going to argue that he was a *good* president. But I can tell you right now your obvious bias and hostility against him is going to make me side pro.. It's the devils advocate in me that will take step up to almost any losing side of a debate wink Just look at the gun thread!

The 'War on Terrorism' is deeply flawed? Howso? It's not about how to defeat terrorism, it's how to combat terrorism. Succumbing to terroristic demands is no way to live. At least Bush had the balls to do something, even if it wasn't the right choice, which I'm not arguing it is. I agree education and infrastructure are important in combating terrorism, and we have done a lot to improve both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't forget that the WTC was bombed once already while Clinton was President, and nothing was done, not to mention the dozens of other terrorist attacks on the US. (The one thing that Clinton did do, along with the UK, was bomb Iraq) The media has a wonderful power to skew any story it wants to make the most money it can. A good president doesn't sell papers. A bad stupid one does.

Whether you want to believe it or not a *lot* of good has come out of us being in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted a lot of pain and suffering has happened as well, but how often do you actually hear about the good? Don't fool yourself into thinking there isn't anything there. We will always be held under a microscope, and held to a higher standard than everyone else. We're big, we're easy to pick on, and the vast majority of people are stupid enough to believe anything they're told without questioning it. It works both ways.

You're right, Iraq was probably a mistake. As for its 'bungled execution' that was *not* the militaries fault. They were asked at the start for exactly what they would need to get the job done. And they gave a list. Because of the so-so views of the country Congress decided they knew better than the military and cut that list down dramatically. Things could have gone hugely different if this war had been executed properly from the start. You ask the military to fight a war, then tie one arm behind their back and blindfold them and go 'HA! we knew this was a mistake' when they stumble? Come on. You can't honestly say that the UN's attempts to impose repeated sanctions on Saddam did any good. You can however most definitely say that the two countries most opposed to the invasion (Russia and France) stood to lost billions if Saddam was no longer in power.

To be honest I don't really want to get into a long winded debate on here. I'm already slow in replying to the gun thread I don't need a second pet project. All I can say is that if the obviously biased media is trying obscenely hard to convince you of something, you *may* want to question what they aren't telling you. And yes, I fully side with Faith that he did a better job than the alternatives. at least he is predictable, even if it's at making bad decisions. I would rather know where I'm going than to get blindsided. He was not dealt the easiest hand as a president, and things could be *far* worse than they are.

What does Katrina have to do with Bush? Katrina was largely a local government cluster^%&$ Bush did exactly what he should have done.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted:Wait Wait I'm not finished yet. I gave you a fair warning of the rant that might follow albeit one somewhat cryptically expressed.

What really irks me about Bush on a more personal level is his attitude to the presidency. The Bush presidency is an enormous patronage machine doling out important posts to unqualified and often incompetent candidates on no other basis than personal friendship. Remember Bush's ill fated attempt to get Harriet Miers nominated to the supreme court? remember Michael Brown, the head of FEMA at the time Katrina struck?

But to Bush this is the way the world works. In his youth he was shuffled from cushy job to cushy job as he failed at each in turn by a network of powerful friends. Now that he's in the driving seat it's the least he can do to usher a wave of incompetent underlings with the right family background into good jobs.

I've already mentioned George's predilection for cutting taxes, spending money and ignoring the enormous resulting federal deficit. It's hardly a surprise that the rise in Pork Barrel spending has been accompanied by a growing army of lobbyists fighting for their piece of the pie. I'm actually surprised that the Abramoff scandal was picked up by the press at all, the behavior seemed typical to me.

And as for "straight talking" George's personal style. The man has serious issues either forming or enunciating cogent thoughts. A small selection;
"Is our children learning",
"It's not pollution that's damaging the environment, it's impurities in our air and water that are doing it",
"one year ago today the time for excuse making has come to an end",
I'd laugh but it seems cruel, like laughing at a handicapped kid. I wouldn't laugh at a mentally handicapped man but I wouldn't elect him to be president either. Whatever you might say about Bush's opponents they were at least intelligent and articulate, a minimum requirement you might think.
Yet, Faith (if I may call you that), observing the niceties of English Grammar seems to be going out of fashion. How else to explain your cavalier attempt to turn a present participle into a superlative or your unorthodox use of the passive voice without a participle either present or past.
I heard election commentators saying that the American people don't want to be patronized, they want a president with the common touch, someone who you could sit down and have a beer with. This begs several questions. Why look for the common touch in a man of immense wealth and privilege? Would you really want to have a beer with George Bush but most importantly would you really want to entrust the security and future of America to your stereotypical Texan beer-buddy. The attempt to claim that his inarticulateness and fear of long words are a selling point really highlights how far you need to look to see any sort of selling point at all in the man.

George Bush hating is a global phenomenon. I have never met anyone prepared to stand up for him. He is hated everywhere I have been and by everyone I have known to have an opinion on the matter including a number of American travelers. You would be hard pushed to find an Englishman prepared to say a good word for him. The president of the United States is the face of America to the world. Why would you choose an inarticulate red-neck? Are you trying to piss everyone else off? Bush has done irreparable damage to America's image abroad.

And yet somehow 150 million people voted for this man.
Twice.

_______________________________________________________

Oh and I'm not done yet we haven't even covered missile defence, stem cell research, Samuel Alito, abstinence-only education in Africa or how bi-partisanship has fallen to all-time lows under the divisive Bush presidency.

I could go on all day (and many will owe I already have). You've probably heard it all before.

So I ask again;

What compelled you to vote for George Bush?


Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

simta
BRONZE Member since Apr 2006

simta

compfuzzled
Location: hastings

Total posts: 1182
Posted: Written by :Lurch


Don't forget that the WTC was bombed once already while Clinton was President,



why not try reading the actual news of that event, and how it was clearly proved and reported on the front pages of american newspapers that it was an american agency (think fbi) that was responsible for the affair


"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Delete

Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted:The post above was written before Lurch waded in. I may have to get in and argue the gun thread too to keep him busy.



He takes issue with my blatant bias. What bias I hear you all ask but I must admit the man has a point. I did not set out to write a balanced account of all that has transpired I set out to write a polemic. You should try it, it's much more fun.



The person who reduced the demand the military made for invading was not congress but Rumsfeld (a mistake he belatedly paid for) the defense secretary and a key member of the Bush team.



Bush was dealt a tough hand. Damn. 9/11 was the best stroke of luck Bush could ever have had. Without 9/11 there was nothing to Bush but a weak domestic agenda. 9/11 was a chance to call for solidarity, to wave the flag and to be the man of the moment.



When Edward Heath heard that the Faulkland islands had been invaded by Argentina he cursed his bad luck that it didn't happen on his watch.



The war against terrorism is madness because invading Iraq has undoubtedly made the world less safe not more. A lot of good came from invading Iraq? really? what?



When I think of the things that could have been accomplished with the money that has been thrown into Iraq, and I compare them to what that money has achieved I want to cry.



So Lurch makes the novel argument that at least with Bush you know you're going to get bad decisions. At least you know where you stand. Damn. Personally I'd take a gamble on not getting shafted rather than bow to the inevitable and clench my teeth. But thats just me.

EDITED_BY: Mascot (1209720631)


Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch,

The war on terrorism is in Afghanistan, not Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was not a mistake; it was a lie and a deception. There were no weapons of mass destruction and no links to Al-Qaeda.

What good has come out of the invasion of Iraq?

Speaking of guns. Bush promised to renew the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Act. But, he succumbed to NRA pressure and consequently put public safety at risk.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by :simta


 Written by :Lurch


Don't forget that the WTC was bombed once already while Clinton was President,



why not try reading the actual news of that event, and how it was clearly proved and reported on the front pages of american newspapers that it was an american agency (think fbi) that was responsible for the affair



Can you show us that? I've never heard that.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

simta
BRONZE Member since Apr 2006

simta

compfuzzled
Location: hastings

Total posts: 1182
Posted:i used to have a link to it, it was on the front page on NY times (possibly) or the other major NY paper.



i shall dig it out - mite take a few days tho


"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:The front page on NY times or Zeitgeist the movie ? wink

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

simta
BRONZE Member since Apr 2006

simta

compfuzzled
Location: hastings

Total posts: 1182
Posted:no i am talking about actual newspaper

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:I think Bush has done a better job than the alternatives would have. Period. That's it. Just an opinion. Just like at this juncture I think McCain would do a much better job than the other two considering our current state of affairs

I'd like to see this article. The FBI bombed the WTC, my censored


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Pele
BRONZE Member since Dec 2000

Pele

the henna lady
Location: WNY, USA

Total posts: 6193
Posted: Written by :Lurch



Don't forget that the WTC was bombed once already while Clinton was President,





Ummmm.... confused



The World Trade Center attack happened on Sept 11, 2001

Clinton finished his presidency in Dec. 2000

G.W.B. jr. was inaugurated as on January 20, 2001.



Bush was president during the 9/11 attack.



Unless you're talking about the truck bombing which happened on Feb 26, 1993, one month after Clinton was sworn is as president. Many of the "terrorists" were caught, some in other countries. Being a car bomb in a garage, of course, but not nearly the amount they had hoped for. It hardly required the attention of 9/11 did of Bush, however.





 Written by :lurch



What does Katrina have to do with Bush? Katrina was largely a local government cluster^%&$ Bush did exactly what he should have done.





If, by that, you mean the fact that days passed while people starved and waited for rescue from the National Guard because of "problems" that FEMA (federal) should have had covered, helping profiteers to prey on the victims there, insulting the residents there publically and in essance being about as proactive as a dead slug...then sure he did what he should have done. This storm had been projected for at least a week, if not more. My friends down there were some of the ones who evacuated when they were told to, and it was bad then. At that point, the President and FEMA are *supposed* to have an emergency plan drawn up and waiting so that they could jump in at a second's notice. They did not. The government on *all* levels failed miserably, Bush included.

Now, he attempted to make up for it with the brush fires in L.A. but he learned too little too late for Katrina victims.



 Written by :simta



why not try reading the actual news of that event, and how it was clearly proved and reported on the front pages of american newspapers that it was an american agency (think fbi) that was responsible for the affair





This is nothing more than a conspiracy theory that has been kicking around since the day after the bombing, perpetuated by paranoia driven people who are still snooping around Roswell.



No credible article has run in the NY Times, or other paper about it. Media here is controlled by the government and the best you'll get is an opinionated reporter/columnist running off at pen without hard evidence to support it.



I'm not saying the gov't did or did not have something to do with it 9/11, I'm saying there is not a shred of hard proof, and if there is, the gov't will make sure it stays buried.



(as for the 1993 car bomb, the FBI and local agencies were alerted ahead of time, and the consequences are that a jury has found Port Authority Security-or whatever it's fully called- more than 50% responsible, while terrorists were only 31% responsible, which means that the Port Authority Security can be sued by victims families. rolleyes )



Mascot, you're forgetting my personal favorite one, a quote following 9/11...

"We's ganna hunt 'em down an' shoot 'em all."

Way to go Tex. *forehead-desk*


Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Do you mean this NY Times article ? Please excuse the copy and paste job as I'm too cheap to buy access to the NY times archives.

 Written by

THE NEW YORK TIMES

* * * * *

Thursday October 28, 1993 Page A1

"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart
Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast"

By Ralph Blumenthal

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.

The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court [on charges of involvement] in that attack.

Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used by the Government [of the United States] to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists who are now charged in two bombing cases: the World Trade Center attack, and a foiled plot to destroy the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels, and other New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the second bombing case, but his work for the Government was erratic, and for months before the World Trade Center blast, he was feuding with the F.B.I.

Supervisor `Messed It Up'

After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an undated transcript of a conversation from that period, Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said, "came and messed it up."

"He requested to meet me in the hotel," Mr. Salem says of the supervisor.

"He requested to make me to testify, and if he didn't push for that, we'll be going building the bomb with a phony powder, and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But since you, we didn't do that."

The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington about the Bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent identified as John Anticev.

Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him,

"He said, I don't think that the New York people would like the things out of the New York Office to go to Washington, D.C."

Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute Mr. Salem's account, but rather, appears to agree with it, saying of the `New York people':

"Well, of course not, because they don't want to get their butts chewed."



Delete

simta
BRONZE Member since Apr 2006

simta

compfuzzled
Location: hastings

Total posts: 1182
Posted:that wasnt the article i was thinking of no

"the geeks have got you" - Gayle

Delete

Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted:I actually agree with faith on McCain. I'm probably more republican than democrat by inclination. Voting along party lines is not really a good idea though, you want a capable candidate and the democrats often field the better candidate. I think McCain is the best candidate this time around and no I'm not going to rant at anyone who disagrees with me because we have much less information and the choice was and remains a hard one. I could easily change my mind.

Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:I don't see how it can be argued that Bush has done a good job.



We have:

1) healthcare cuts

2) 3 trillion dollars sunk into Iraq with nothing to show after 6 years.

3) $4 gas

4) a recession

5) Environmental disaster

6) flu vaccine failure after flu vaccine failure

7) Infrastructural failures so huge that they destroy entire cities.



I am very concerned for the state of the Union. I am very concerned that we may be so irreparably damaged that the only solution is for the entire country to fall and then re-form.



And it wasn't like this until 2000.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Sorry Mascot I'm not gonna read your giant block of text above my post.. forgive me on that one

As for Katrina: Bush did not appoint Michael Brown, Michael Chertoff did. I know there were a *lot* off issues there. I've worked Search & Rescue for nearly a decade, and spent time working for FEMA (Pre-Katrina) The whole thing could have been handled a LOT better. But the reasons it went FUBAR come down to the local government. Both Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco. THEY are the ones responsible for implementing an emergency evacuation, and they must ASK for the aid from the federal government. They dropped the ball big time, the feds were only following the rules. Admittedly they should have been bent this time, but it's not Bush's fault on Katrina.

 Written by :


why not try reading the actual news of that event, and how it was clearly proved and reported on the front pages of american newspapers that it was an american agency (think fbi) that was responsible for the affair



Huh? Tabloids don't count

Stone: Yes I know the difference. Iraq may have been a mistake but I don't believe it was a lie. If they had blatantly lied about WMD's don't you think they would have covered their tracks and planted some? Bush may be stupid but he's not that stupid. I don't recall him ever saying there were links from Iraq to Al-Quada, maybe I missed that one, but I know the media loves to jump on that. So you want good things out of Iraq? How about the 3.5 million + kids that were immunized, school attendance up to 95%, 2,500 school renovated, 240 hospitals and 2400 health care clinics operating. Oh yeah, and Saddam is out of power. (Don't forget Clinton is the one to sign the Iraq Liberation Act in '98 calling for regime change). He did kill a couple million of his own people after all. Overall the Iraqi people are safer now than they were before.

As for the Assault Weapons farce, I'm not getting into that one in this thread :P

Yes Pele I was talking about the '93 attack. And yes it was most certainly an act of terrorism. 9/11 wasn't ment to bring the towers down, they just wanted to fly planes into them, they just got lucky with how it ended up. Clinton promised to 'hunt down those responsible' in '93 Which I guess he may have done, but it hardly eliminated the problem. How about the 95 bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 5 Americans? or the '96 Khobar Tower bombing. US embassies in Africa were bombed in 98, and the USS Cole in 2000. You could even count Oklahoma City but domestic terrorism is a bit of a different breed so I left that one off the list. The one thing he did do, was bomb Iraq. Bush has done fairly well at preventing another 9/11 type attack, they have stopped at least 19 attempts post 9/11.

Once again, I'm not trying to argue that Bush is a *good* president at all. He's not all that bright (although he's probably smarter than most people give him credit for) and he has certainly screwed up a time or two. But do you honestly think Kerry would have done better given the same circumstances? Or Hillary?? God forbid she gets in office... Obama I genuinely believe probably has good intentions, but I don't think he has the experience or leadership necessary for our struggling nation.. So I would have to go with McCain.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, time to stop believing your own propaganda.

 Written by Lurch

Stone: Yes I know the difference. Iraq may have been a mistake but I don't believe it was a lie. If they had blatantly lied about WMD's don't you think they would have covered their tracks and planted some? Bush may be stupid but he's not that stupid. I don't recall him ever saying there were links from Iraq to Al-Quada, maybe I missed that one, but I know the media loves to jump on that. So you want good things out of Iraq? How about the 3.5 million + kids that were immunized, school attendance up to 95%, 2,500 school renovated, 240 hospitals and 2400 health care clinics operating. Oh yeah, and Saddam is out of power. (Don't forget Clinton is the one to sign the Iraq Liberation Act in '98 calling for regime change). He did kill a couple million of his own people after all. Overall the Iraqi people are safer now than they were before.



Lurch, if the story about WMD wasnt a blatantly lied, then what was it? Id expect that the President of the USA would need to have a bit more than rumours, before committing to an invasion of another country. An invasion that has so far cost the USA three trillion dollars, not to mention the cost to Iraq and other countries or the cost in human lives. Its much easier to believe it was motivated by greed for oil.

I thought the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terrorism. For sure President Saddam Hussein was a despot, but it was Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda that orchestrated the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center etc.

I think Bush could have used more peaceful methods if he was really interested in helping 3.5 million Iraqi kids with immunizations, schools, hospitals etc. That to me is not so much help as trying to fix the damage caused by the invasion. And hey, what about American kids? There trillion dollars buys a lot of health care, schools, immunizations for Americans.

Bush went against the UN, which destabilizes the world. Saddam might be out of power, but Iraq is on the verge of civil war. In effect, Bush managed to destroy an effective secular governance and replace it with a bunch of fanatic fundamentalists. Even the guy who ripped down Saddams statue said Iraq was better before the invasion.

Time to get real. Not only are the Iraqi people in more danger now, but terrorism world wide has risen dramatically in response to the invasion.

One of the reasons your nation is struggling is because of poor leadership and the Iraq war. Time to really think about who is the best person to change the old paradigms and lead the USA into the future. Or do you just want more of the same; o'h McCain, you've done it again.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:First off, Iraq was not all about WMD's, there were plenty of other reasons we went in. The media loves to tote it as the only, or even the primary one to make Bush look more a fool. Way to buy into that wink You can't deny that Saddam DID have WMD's in the past, and every intelligence agency on the planet thought that he still did. He quite possibly *did* he just managed to either destroy them or move them out of country before we found them. If you think about it he was guaranteed to lose against us, so what better way to make us look a fool?

The Iraq war was not part of the war on terrorism as far as I know, people like to confuse the two. Regime change has been in the works by both the UN and the US for nearly 20 years. We've tried the 'peaceful methods' and beat them into the dirt. They didn't work. All the sanctions on Iraq since the 90's have been with the goal of removing Saddam from power. They cost far more innocent lives than our war has. UNICEF said 500,000 children died as a direct result of the sanctions, and over a million Iraqi's total.

No one is arguing that ObL was behind 9/11. And I haven't claimed a tie between them and Iraq at all.

How does going against the UN destabilize the world? The UN has been defunct and pointless for many years now. It was good for awhile, and is still good in theory, but not in practice. The main reasons the UN didn't go along with it was because of France, Russia's, and to some extent Germany's, very vocal opposition. There were SIXTEEN resolutions passed against Iraq, none of them did any good. France was reaping huge benefits from the 'Oil for Food' program, and Russia was making billions annually through oil contracts, all of which would have been lost if Iraq fell.

So which is more probable? The US lied, convinced the UK and numerous other countries to lie as well and waged an illegal war to somehow obtain oil (I haven't seen any benefit yet, gas prices have done nothing but raise) and kick a bully out of power. Or that France and Russia vowed to VETO any serious resolution that would risk their multi-billion dollar oil contracts and forced our hand to either do nothing, or do something. Obviously you would have went with the do nothing side.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, whatever. Did you miss this bit in my previous post. Time to stop believing your own propaganda.



If the USA is so big on fighting bullys, and not being a bully, how come they havent invaded Zimbabwe and kicked out Mugabe or any of a dozen other despots out there?



Bottom line, yes I believe Bush lied, convinced the UK and numerous other countries to wage an illegal war to somehow obtain oil. Nothing else makes any sense.

EDITED_BY: Stone (1209799147)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:I just want you to question your own beliefs Stone, you're ignoring half of the story

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, Im only putting forward my opinions.



Before we go completely off topic, what half of the story Im apparent ignoring? That the UN only appears pointless because it does not agree with the USA. Or from what you are saying, it looks like the US led invasion was necessary because France, Russia, and to some extent Germany's were reaping the spoils, and the US was missing out.



Don't kid yourself, it's about oil not altruism.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted:Wikipedia Entry---if you disagree edit Wikipedia

Bush appointed Michael Brown

Michael DeWayne Brown (born November 8, 1954) was Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a position generally referred to as the director or administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). He was appointed in January, 2003 by President George W. Bush and resigned in September, 2005 following public outcry over his handling of Hurricane Katrina.

Bush associates Iraq with Al Quaeda
Bush (on Saddam Hussein) jan 2003
"He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans,"

Bush defends link between Iraq and Al Quaeda june 2004
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,"


Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted:The U.N. is indeed pointless. Without a standing army the U.N. will always be a debating club and nothing more. I believe the U.N. should have a standing army but thats another argument. Every time the U.N. makes a resolution it then has to round each country cap in hand asking for troops. This makes the U.N. look pathetic and makes the U.N. hostage to political realities in each member country. A country will only send a force to fight a war if it's in that countries interest and they needed an excuse to attack, the U.N. makes not one iota of difference.

list of U.N. security council resolutions concerning Israel;
1. Resolution 42: The Palestine Question (5 March 1948) Requests recommendations for the Palestine Commission
2. Resolution 43: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Recognizes "increasing violence and disorder in Palestine" and requests that representatives of "the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Arab Higher Committee" arrange, with the Security Council, "a truce between the Arab and Jewish Communities of Palestine...Calls upon Arab and Jewish armed groups in Palestine to cease acts of violence immediately."
3. Resolution 44: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Requests convocation of special session of the General Assembly
4. Resolution 46: The Palestine Question (17 Apr 1948) As the United Kingdom is the Mandatory Power, "it is responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in Palestine." The Resolutions also "Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine" to stop importing "armed bands and fighting personnel...whatever their origin;...weapons and war materials;...Refrain, pending the future government of Palestine...from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;...refrain from any action which will endager the safety of the Holy Places in Palestine."
5. Resolution 48: The Palestine Question (23 Apr 1948)
6. Resolution 49: The Palestine Question (22 May 1948)
7. Resolution 50: The Palestine Question (29 May 1948)
8. Resolution 53: The Palestine Question (7 Jul 1948)
9. Resolution 54: The Palestine Question (15 Jul 1948)
10. Resolution 56: The Palestine Question (19 Aug 1948)
11. Resolution 57: The Palestine Question (18 Sep 1948)
12. Resolution 59: The Palestine Question (19 Oct 1948)
13. Resolution 60: The Palestine Question (29 Oct 1948)
14. Resolution 61: The Palestine Question (4 Nov 1948)
15. Resolution 62: The Palestine Question (16 Nov 1948)
16. Resolution 66: The Palestine Question (29 Dec 1948)
17. Resolution 72: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
18. Resolution 73: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
19. Resolution 89 (17 November 1950): regarding Armistice in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and "transfer of persons".
20. Resolution 92: The Palestine Question (8 May 1951)
21. Resolution 93: The Palestine Question (18 May 1951)
22. Resolution 95: The Palestine Question (1 Sep 1951)
23. Resolution 100: The Palestine Question (27 Oct 1953)
24. Resolution 101: The Palestine Question (24 Nov 1953)
25. Resolution 106: The Palestine Question (29 Mar 1955) 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid.
26. Resolution 107: The Palestine Question (30 Mar)
27. Resolution 108: The Palestine Question (8 Sep)
28. Resolution 111: " ... 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
29. Resolution 127: " ... 'recommends' Israel suspends its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
30. Resolution 162: " ... 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
31. Resolution 171: " ... determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
32. Resolution 228: " ... 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
33. Resolution 237: " ... 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
34. Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel's neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
35. Resolution 248: " ... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
36. Resolution 250: " ... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
37. Resolution 251: " ... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
38. Resolution 252: " ... 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
39. Resolution 256: " ... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
40. Resolution 259: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
41. Resolution 262: " ... 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
42. Resolution 265: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
43. Resolution 267: " ... 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
44. Resolution 270: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
45. Resolution 271: " ... 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
46. Resolution 279: " ... 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
47. Resolution 280: " ... 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
48. Resolution 285: " ... 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
49. Resolution 298: " ... 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
50. Resolution 313: " ... 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
51. Resolution 316: " ... 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
52. Resolution 317: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
53. Resolution 332: " ... 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
54. Resolution 337: " ... 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
55. Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): cease fire in Yom Kippur War
56. Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
57. Resolution 347: " ... 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
58. Resolution 425 (1978): 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was completed as of 16 June 2000.
59. Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
60. Resolution 427: " ... 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
61. Resolution 444: " ... 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
62. Resolution 446 (1979): 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
63. Resolution 450: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
64. Resolution 452: " ... 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
65. Resolution 465: " ... 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
66. Resolution 467: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
67. Resolution 468: " ... 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
68. Resolution 469: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
69. Resolution 471: " ... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
70. Resolution 476: " ... 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
71. Resolution 478 (20 August 1980): 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'.
72. Resolution 484: " ... 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
73. Resolution 487: " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
74. Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
75. Resolution 498: " ... 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
76. Resolution 501: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
77. Resolution 508:
78. Resolution 509: " ... 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
79. Resolution 515: " ... 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".
80. Resolution 517: " ... 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
81. Resolution 518: " ... 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
82. Resolution 520: " ... 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
83. Resolution 573: " ... 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
84. Resolution 587 " ... 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
85. Resolution 592: " ... 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
86. Resolution 605: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
87. Resolution 607: " ... 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
88. Resolution 608: " ... 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
89. Resolution 636: " ... 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
90. Resolution 641: " ... 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
91. Resolution 672: " ... 'condemns' Israel for "violence against Palestinians" at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
92. Resolution 673: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
93. Resolution 681: " ... 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
94. Resolution 694: " ... 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
95. Resolution 726: " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
96. Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
97. Resolution 1559 (2 September 2004) called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias to disband.
98. Resolution 1583 (28 January 2005) calls on Lebanon to assert full control over its border with Israel. It also states that "the Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for the purpose of confirming Israel's withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425.
99. Resolution 1648 (21 December 2005) renewed the mandate of United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 30 June 2006.
100. Resolution 1701 (11 August 2006) called for the full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.

How about we enforce these?


Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted:Right listen up y'all it's get a sense of perspective time.

victims of 9/11 <3,000
road deaths that year > 42,000
homicides (1997) 18,000

Terrorism works because it's highly visible and it makes headlines. Democracies have to respond to high profile events, and react to people fears however unfounded those fears might be. In the average year no U.S. citizen dies due to terror attacks. You should be more scared of being run down, shot accidentally or struck by lightning.

There is an argument that terrorists might gain access to nuclear or biological agents, and for this reason I support maintaining an intelligence agency. These threats should be the focus, not car bombs or plane hijackings. Airport security must constitute one of the least cost-effective public safety measures ever. What irritates me is that 9/11 has been blown out of all proportion.

Fighting terrorism is still a high priority in surveys of what concerns Americans most. If they were concerned about saving lives they would be more concerned about gun control, or about road safety or about improving the health system.

Thats the trouble with people, they can't see the big picture, they have this thing called empathy which is great but means that they put far too much emphasis on anecdotal evidence and consequently get a very skewed view of the world.


Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:confused

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted:why the confusion?

Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Perhaps you could elaborate on some of your wiki quotes.

Think you are underestimating the impact 911 had on the world. As Bush said, this is the new normal.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted:I have only quoted the start of the Michael Brown entry from Wikipedia although I did also get the list of U.N. resolutions from wikipedia.



I do not underestimate the impact of 9/11. 9/11 hit people on a personal and emotional level. It stirred up a great sense of injustice, of loss, and spurred a desire for revenge.



It was specifically intended to be high profile and succeeded spectacularly.



The inevitable response was to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq followed. Whatever Lurch may say without the strong feelings created by 9/11 it was unlikely that Iraq would have been invaded. 3,000 casualties is not a lot but for those 3,000 dead the U.S. embarked on a global crusade, a war on terror, and poured trillions into foreign wars and homeland security.



I really wish the response had been a bit more measured. Essentially the president needed to say "There are people who want to kill Americans because they have extreme religious beliefs. There are not many and we will try to contain them as best we can but from time to time it is inevitable that they will succeed. Today is a sad day for America, we must mourn our dead and consider our options."



Instead the response was something like "Today is a sad day for America, but we must rise up and show that we are a great nation and we are not afraid. Evil men have perpetrated an attack on U.S. soil and they will not get away with it. We must declare in one voice to the world that we will fight terror with all the means at our disposal. America will stand proud and lead the war against terror."



The second is more rousing, more of a rallying cry and the president who would forgo it's emotional appeal would never get to be president as he would clearly lack political acumen.



But when you find some people killed by suicidal madmen rounding up the posse, inflaming the crowd and getting out the torches and pitchforks might not be the best response.



So George Bush goes completely overboard with a crowd baying for blood behind him, and then emphasis's the terror threat and how he's tough on terror at every opportunity ironically helping to create the climate of fear that was the terrorists original goal.



If you can stand back and try to take an objective view, hard as it is, you find that the high profile problems are always the ones to receive the most attention but not always the worst problems. I don't blame Bush for any of this, but I lament that it is so.


Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by :Mascot

I don't blame Bush for any of this, but I lament that it is so.



I do. He basically tried to get himself named dictator.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:The relationship between the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror hinges on the perceived role that Iraq played re state sponsored terrorism.

What do you figure ? Did Bush read Laurie Mylroie's book and take it to heart despite the opposition of his own intelligence agencies ?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html

A link to the AEI site.

http://www.aei.org/books/bookID.242,filter.all/book_detail2.asp

Throw in a little Hanlon's razor, Bush is after all, a politician, and we have a convoluted mess that may never be fully explained.


Delete

Page: 12345