Finally, someone gets it

[ShowOff]

answer me one question, who is the USA at war with?

 

[rob_just_rob]

Rob,

"There are lots of people that the world would be a better place without. Does that mean I can wander around shooting them?"

Yes, when the circumstance warrants. Both saddam and Hitler warranted it.

"Moreover, I don't see the USA moving in to take out Mugabe. "

So, if we were starting wars with countries all over the world, then that would be OK with you? In fact you demand that we become involved with strife in all countries with a problem. Isn't that what you are asking for in your quote?

You're quite a literalist. Sorry - I should have been more clear.

As to the first line you quoted, I would think that it's obvious that I shouldn't be able to go around shooting people that I've decided should be killed. That's a pretty clear premise in the Canadian legal system, and while I'm no expert, I think the U.S. legal system is similar.

The point being, this was an illegal war and can't be justified, in the same way that I can't justify shooting people who post crap on internet fora.

The USA arbitrarily decided to invade Iraq to "get" Saddam:

Tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result.

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted.

No WMDs were found in Iraq. (incidentally, I'm not buying into your attempt to characterize HE munitions as WMD. The world was given the impression that Saddam had one of chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons at the ready. None of these were found.)

Al-Qaida never had bases there.

After these four points became common knowledge, the rationale for the war retroactively became "ridding the world of Saddam". My Mugabe comment was intended to point out the fallacy of the rid-the-world-of-Saddam argument - the US turns a blind eye to (or indeed, installs) other brutal dictators all the time. This suggests that Saddam was targeted, not because he had WMDs (none found), not because he was supporting al-Qaida, and not because he was an evil dictator. So what was the reason? It appears to have been oil, a lingering grudge from the last gulf war, or the megalomania of the PNAC folks that Bush had surrounded himself with.

"Incidentally, if Bush had acted appropriately, you wouldn't be in this war today, either."

OK, here's your chance, what should President Bush have done differently. Please do not use the tired old "give more time for the sanctions to work" reply. Anyone with half a brain knows that the sanctions were not working because the countries who objected to military action were also the countries who were trading with Iraq even though it was illegal (that would be Russia, France and Germany).

What Bush should have done is kept his eye on the ball and continued to pursue al-Qaida and the Taliban (in Afghanistan) instead of pouring troops into Iraq. There were no terrorist training camps in Iraq! Invading Iraq in 2003 after 9/11 makes as much sense as invading Peru after Pearl Harbour would have.

And, I'm really, really interested in your opinions on Iran. Hope to hear form you soon!

Here's my views on Iran:

Let's put ourselves into Iran's shoes.

In 1953, the US and Britain orchestrate the overthrow of your government and replace it with one more amenable to western oil interests.

In 1979, you finally overthrow the Shah (who was an evil dictator much like Saddam). In response, the US freezes Iranian assets and holds them to this day, despite promises to release them.

Fast forward a few more years. Bush calls Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the axis of evil. Bush proceeds to invade Iraq, and Afghanistan, putting US-led forces on either side of Iran.

Now, wouldn't you feel a little threatened by this? Iraq has no WMDs and gets invaded. N. Korea gets the bomb, and a fresh round of diplomacy.

Now, what the hell do you expect Iran to do, when faced with circumstances like these? Anyone who can read newspapers and history books can see that they're being set up for another one of Bush's "regime changes". Nuclear weapons are a pretty good way to deter that.

As for making comments about Israel ceasing to exist... come on. Reagan promised to "begin bombing (Russia) in 5 minutes" - how is this different? And Israel can take care of itself.

 

[B_Hung Muscle]

It's interesting that the Democratic senator from Nebraska (I forget his name) lines up with bush, so they cancel each other.

Ben Nelson

 

[rob_just_rob]

"politically insignificant blowjob."

Sorry, missed this part.

Let's try this one more time. The blowjob caused the President to lie about having sex with an intern. This in itself is not earth shaking but the fact is, he lied about it under oath. Any idea of what the charge for lying under oath is? It is a felony. Any idea of what you cannot be if you are a felon? That's right, you cannot be the President of the United States. That's just the legal ramifications to your politically insigificant blowjob. Our President is getting head in the oval office, and you think this makes the US look good to the world. Don't try to pass off what President Clinton did with Ms. Lewinski and OTHERS as insignificant.

Yes, one last time for this old chestnut.

I (and most Americans, according to Clinton's post-impeachment polls) don't have a terribly big problem with Clinton lying about his sex life under oath. Most of us can see that the question about Ms. Lewinsky had nothing to do with the investigation at hand, but was instead, a partisan attempt to embarrass him and smear his name.

Bush lied to the American people and he lied to the world about a matter that has gotten people killed. So what if he didn't do it under oath? Don't you believe that when a president takes a country to war, he has an obligation to be honest about his motives?? What about the oaths Bush took at his inauguration?

Where's your sense of proportion, man? It's a fucking blowjob.

It did as much to harm our image in the world eyes as any thing President Bush has done. Deal with it!

At first I didn't know what to say to this. Are you joking?

In case you're serious: The rest of the world, contrary to what you would like to believe, isn't full of puritans. We acknowledge that presidents and prime ministers have sex lives. And we're more concerned about tens of thousands of dead people than we are about dry cleaning bills.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Would you like to explain what the US gained during WWII? Which of our interests were we protecting in Korea? What assets in Vietnam?

1. The US didn't get into WWII voluntarily. You might recall that Japan attacked the USA, and Germany declared war on them.

You can quibble about whether the USA provoked Japan into attacking (via the oil embargo), but it's pretty clear to sensible people that Iraq did not attack the USA, unlike Japan in 1941.

2. Korea was fought in an attempt to preserve the cold-war status quo. Recall that at about this time, Americans were seeing communists under their beds.

3. Please read "The Pentagon Papers". I'll give away the ending: It was "The Domino Theory"

"predicated primarily on serving US interests and no-one elses", give me a break. Sure we protect our assets and those of our allies, makes sense to me.

At the expense of whoever gets in your way or disagrees with you.

"Protecting US assets and interests" is a long way from "getting rid of an evil dictator" or "keeping the world safe for democracy". Please google "United Fruit" and "Marines" - you'll find some interesting stuff.

 

[BFCNS]

Rob, thanks for your input, I don't know where to begin.

Why are you even in this conversation considering the stance that Canada has taken. You have no standing here since you have assumed none of the risk in Iraq.

 

[madame_zora]

Rob, thanks for your input, I don't know where to begin.

Why are you even in this conversation considering the stance that Canada has taken. You have no standing here since you have assumed none of the risk in Iraq.

No, YOU have no standing HERE mister n00b with your big 11 posts. You're making quite the name for yourself though, something like "asshat" should suffice.

When every single one of your "points" was thoroughly matched and explained, your only reply is this? I believe you don't know where to begin, but I also acknowledge that you pay people "smarter than you" to do your thinking.

There is NO justification for this war, it was wrong from the beginning and it's still wrong now.

 

[BFCNS]

Zora,

Because I only have 11 posts here, does that make me stupid? Maybe you need to know more about who you are insulting.

As far as a building a reputation, oh well. Am I supposed to say what you and others want to hear just to be popular? Is that what you do? Do you actually know what you are talking about or are you just a parrot for the destructive, disrespectful loud mouths that think bashing the President is cool. I don't like hearing Americans criticize the President and his administration, but there is freedom of speech, they can talk and I don't have to listen. However, I absolutely will not tolerate someone who is from a country who decided to sit it out and let others carry the load and take the responsibility for fighting terrorism. I will exercise that same freedom of speech and voice my opinion and if you don't like it, well don't listen.

Please let me clarify something for you, the United States is a republic, not a democracy as so many erroneously believe. What is the difference? I am glad you asked. A republic is a form of government were groups of people elect someone "smarter then themselves" to represent them. A democracy is where the government is run directly by the people. So, by definition, you as a citizen of the US, a republic, pay people "smarter than you" to make the decisions. Gee civics 101, not too bad for a n00b.

I have read quite a few of your posts and think you give some pretty good advice. On the other hand, when you try to influence the conversation because it's not to your liking, well that is another matter. You started this thread and I voiced my opinion. The next time you start a conversation, have an expectation that not everyone will agree with you and if you find yourself reading stuff you don't like then stop and exercise your right to not listen. Don't start a thread as controversial as this and expect everyone to agree with your point of view or that arguements will be made without emotion. That is a very naive point of view, especially from someone who has 9,539 posts.

 

[madame_zora]

Zora,

Because I only have 11 posts here, does that make me stupid? Maybe you need to know more about who you are insulting.

No, having 11 posts means you're out of line telling someone else when they do or do not have a right to post their opinion, whether or not you think they should, fucker. We have well-respected members from all over the world whose voices are welcome. Don't like it? piss off.

As far as a building a reputation, oh well. Am I supposed to say what you and others want to hear just to be popular? Is that what you do? Do you actually know what you are talking about or are you just a parrot for the destructive, disrespectful loud mouths that think bashing the President is cool.

I am informed, you can decide for yourself as to whether you respect my views. I despise this president, and I don't give a fuck how anyone feels about that.

I don't like hearing Americans criticize the President and his administration, but there is freedom of speech, they can talk and I don't have to listen. However, I absolutely will not tolerate someone who is from a country who decided to sit it out and let others carry the load and take the responsibility for fighting terrorism.

Then you should leave now. You don't get to decide who says what. Anyone moronic enough to believe we're fighting terrrrrrrrism is delusional anyway.

I will exercise that same freedom of speech and voice my opinion and if you don't like it, well don't listen.

I always appreciate opposing views, but only from those who have the tencity to participate in a conversation. You dismissed my first response to you, so I have no interest in addressing how ignorant YOUR posts have been. So far, plenty of others have done quite well, even the foreigners, who seem to know more about our situation than you do.

Please let me clarify something for you, the United States is a republic, not a democracy as so many erroneously believe. What is the difference? I am glad you asked. A republic is a form of government were groups of people elect someone "smarter then themselves" to represent them. A democracy is where the government is run directly by the people. So, by definition, you as a citizen of the US, a republic, pay people "smarter than you" to make the decisions. Gee civics 101, not too bad for a n00b.

Hahaha, if you weren't such a n00b, you'd know that I and most of the rest of us already know that, and have discussed it at length.

I have read quite a few of your posts and think you give some pretty good advice. On the other hand, when you try to influence the conversation because it's not to your liking, well that is another matter. You started this thread and I voiced my opinion. The next time you start a conversation, have an expectation that not everyone will agree with you and if you find yourself reading stuff you don't like then stop and exercise your right to not listen. Don't start a thread as controversial as this and expect everyone to agree with your point of view or that arguements will be made without emotion. That is a very naive point of view, especially from someone who has 9,539 posts.

You have the right to voice your opinion, and everyone else has the right to challenge it. Read the ToS and you might get a better understanding. Having the right to state your opinion does not give you any sort of protection from rebuttal. You want a bunch of adulation for supporting a war that the majority of the American public opposes? That makes you stupid, not your post count. As for emotion, you don't know me at all!

FWIW, I LOVE it when someone like you comes in and acts like they are the One True Authority, it makes your position look as ridiculous as it actually is. Please, keep up the good work.

 

[SassySpy]

I am informed, you can decide for yourself as to whether you respect my views. I despise this president, and I don't give a fuck how anyone feels about that.

sorry for such broad editing of your post, MZ- its all good but this made me respond when normally, I stay out of the political arena. During my visit in Holland, and the multiple airports I had to visit during my trip, I really was astounded at the lack of anything positive said about Bush. From american to lithuanian to dutch to people from every point of the globe, even young children (13-14 approx) said he's an ass. I was astounded not because I have anything positive to say, because I don't- he's an idiot and I am so glad I never voted for him. It was just a surprise to me for some reason, to find out 98% of the people I met feel exactly the same way.
And thats really all I have to say- but your proud statement made me a bit ashamed that I am not more vocal about some things, being a 'peacemaker' kinda girl :smile:- but hey, ya know what?
I don't give a fuck either who knows I think Bush is an imbecile, if thats a problem for me as a state government employee, well, tough shit. He's still an ass without brains and I'm not going to say otherwise because its the p.c. thing to do.
Cheers, MZ-

 

[Full_Phil]

Everyone on either side runs the risk of losing both their own train of thought and that of the reader when the argument switches from "what" one says to "how" one says it.

 

[madame_zora]

Everyone on either side runs the risk of losing both their own train of thought and that of the reader when the argument switches from "what" one says to "how" one says it.

Yeah, I get that all the time. I just love how any point I make gets dismissed because I'm a big, fat meanie. Boo-hoo, this is an adult forum, and I am talking to adults.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

answer me one question, who is the USA at war with?

Everyone else at the rate of weapon stockpiling. It's your culture really, reminds me of the Vikings with the whole "ME FIGHT ME BRIGHT" thing, but heck, I don't need to compensate for penile size.

As for Bush, well for the haters, he wont be around for ever. And Iraq will be a nice US concentration camp methinks. I wonder what their McDonalds will be like? :biggrin1:

 

[rob_just_rob]

Rob, thanks for your input, I don't know where to begin.

Why are you even in this conversation considering the stance that Canada has taken. You have no standing here since you have assumed none of the risk in Iraq.

Canada's fighting in Afghanistan - you know, that place that sheltered bin Laden (remember him?) and hosted the al-Qaida training camps - while Bush is "busy" in Iraq, lining his friends' pockets, pursuing personal vendettas, and who knows what else.

Your posts reveal that you haven't even done basic research on this topic. Troll.

 

[ETA123]

You have no standing here since you have assumed none of the risk in Iraq.

Considering that you are posting from the comfort of your home or office, neither have you. Your point?

 

[kalipygian]

Just don't disparage H. M. Maha Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX), lese majeste is still a crime in the kingdom of Siam.

 

[JustAsking]

We haven't invaded Iran yet. This should be very interesting.

That might be because we don't have anything left to invade them with.

I heard a commentator (didn't have a chance to see who it was) say that Iran is really hurting from the sanctions and wants to deal. This guy thought that the sanctions were actually working. Sorry I have no source, and no way of knowing if this guy knew what he was talking about.

I know. Suppose we threaten countries like Iran that we will invade their borders and not actually win the war, but just hang around and cause lots of people to die. We seem to have perfected that in VietNam and Iraq.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Impeachments SHOULD be reserved for the most egregious of CRIMEs, not unpopularity.

So the events leading up to the last presidential impeachment were egregious crimes?

 

[B_JQblonde]

So the events leading up to the last presidential impeachment were egregious crimes?

No.
That's why they shouldn't have wasted the time.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Rob, thanks for your input, I don't know where to begin.

Why are you even in this conversation considering the stance that Canada has taken. You have no standing here since you have assumed none of the risk in Iraq.

Point 1: Uh, Rob is entitled to an opinion on world affairs. I don't really think that he, personally, is in the position to invade any country. Point 2: if being a citizen of one country voids your right to an opinion of another country's government, then what the fuck are we doing in Iraq?

No.
That's why they shouldn't have wasted the time.

Or the taxpayer money? Wow, for once, we agree on something.