The W
Views: 178595231
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.3.17 0338
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - International team to monitor U.S. Presidential election Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(1229 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (61 total)
Lafayette
Weisswurst
Level: 13

Posts: 6/21
EXP: 8143
For next: 2124

Since: 10.8.04
From: Dan Rathers Bath House

Since last post: 7101 days
Last activity: 7101 days
#41 Posted on 11.8.04 1538.32
Reposted on: 11.8.11 1544.36
I'm well aware of the Global economy and how there is no turning back without our quality of life going down the crapper.

That doesn't mean we stop protecting our best interests and invite foreign countries into our political process. Especially socialist/communist European countries who recently stabbed us in the back for illegal business deals with Hitler Jr. over in Iraq.

It's a complete insult. My question is if these Democrats and Powell think our Government is so corrupt that we can't hold a simple election; who's fault is that? THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT! Are they asking to be replaced as apparently they can not do their job properly having to ask for other countries to do it for them?

Maybe we can send a team of Americans from Bush's cabinet over to France to stand over them while they hold their elections.

Sure that would go over great!!

No offense taken. I put my country first at all times. That doesn't make me an isolationist. Just rational.


(edited by Lafayette on 11.8.04 1339)

(edited by Lafayette on 11.8.04 1340)

(edited by Lafayette on 11.8.04 1341)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 72

Posts: 949/1084
EXP: 3213529
For next: 110249

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 6422 days
Last activity: 6419 days
#42 Posted on 11.8.04 1746.23
Reposted on: 11.8.11 1750.18
    Originally posted by Lafayette
    That doesn't mean we stop protecting our best interests and invite foreign countries into our political process.


These people are acting as part of an international body of which we are a memeber, not as agents of any particular country.


    My question is if these Democrats and Powell think our Government is so corrupt that we can't hold a simple election; who's fault is that? THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT!


Again, when exactly did the State Department become run by Democrats?
Lafayette
Weisswurst
Level: 13

Posts: 7/21
EXP: 8143
For next: 2124

Since: 10.8.04
From: Dan Rathers Bath House

Since last post: 7101 days
Last activity: 7101 days
#43 Posted on 11.8.04 1803.22
Reposted on: 11.8.11 1804.08
I tend to disagree with your first point and do not understand your second.

The "international community" is not a cohesive team but a group of self interested countries working together when it benefits them only and conniving against otherwise.

I appreciate action before words so find it amazing you would attempt to say France, and Germany among others are "on our side." They are on the side of their European Socialist Union. Period.

Your second point again is not warranted. I separated the Democrats and Powell out. They both share responsibility for this outrage.

After re-reading my statement I fail to see where you came up with that second point.

eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 72

Posts: 951/1084
EXP: 3213529
For next: 110249

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 6422 days
Last activity: 6419 days
#44 Posted on 11.8.04 1818.50
Reposted on: 11.8.11 1819.52
Did you even read the article that started this thread, or any article on this story? It states that the State Department asked for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to observe the elections. So, starting with this information:


    The "international community" is not a cohesive team but a group of self interested countries working together when it benefits them only and conniving against otherwise.


I never said anything about the "international community." I said that the observers are "acting as part of an international body of which we are a memeber, not as agents of any particular country," which is still the case. In fact, to do something crazy and quote the article:


    OSCE-participating (nations) agreed in 1990 to observe elections in one another's countries. The OSCE routinely monitors elections within its 55-state membership, including Europe, Eurasia, Canada and the United States


You go on to say:


    Your second point again is not warranted. I separated the Democrats and Powell out. They both share responsibility for this outrage.

    After re-reading my statement I fail to see where you came up with that second point.


How does the minority party in Congress bear any sort of responsibility for what the State Department did? I realize that you seperated them from Powell, but that still doesn't explain how they have any responsibility in this at all.



Lafayette
Weisswurst
Level: 13

Posts: 8/21
EXP: 8143
For next: 2124

Since: 10.8.04
From: Dan Rathers Bath House

Since last post: 7101 days
Last activity: 7101 days
#45 Posted on 11.8.04 1834.58
Reposted on: 11.8.11 1836.27

    Did you even read the article that started this thread, or any article on this story? It states that the State Department asked for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to observe the elections.


Why yes, and I would submit that I know more then even you on this subject.

International community, International body you can say it anyway you want. I fail to see a difference aside from splitting at hairs.

This would never have been brought up at all if it were not for a handful of radical, leftist Democrats like Sheila Jackson Lee and her cronies. They raised hell demanding our election be overseen by European Socialists crying about the 2000 election results (whats new?) The State Dept meaning Powell and his deputy agreed to let the Socialists from Europe monitor our elections.

I believe I stated this more then once so maybe you could do a little more research as there are rules about repeating yourself in these forums.

The "monitoring team" is from European countries. The majority of Europe belongs to the Socialist European Union. Again, the International Community.

Hope that cleared things up for you that go around. The clear fact is this would never have even been an afterthought had not the Jacobin Democrats demanded it in the first place. Powell is to blame for actually going along with the scheme.

Gugs
Bierwurst
Level: 90

Posts: 1191/1857
EXP: 7123512
For next: 65124

Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)

Since last post: 3952 days
Last activity: 3081 days
Y!:
#46 Posted on 11.8.04 1914.52
Reposted on: 11.8.11 1916.00
    Originally posted by Lafayette
    I believe I stated this more then once so maybe you could do a little more research as there are rules about repeating yourself in these forums.


Straight from the horse's (ass') mouth.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 152

Posts: 2612/6205
EXP: 44086186
For next: 215576

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
ICQ:  
Y!:
#47 Posted on 11.8.04 1947.28
Reposted on: 11.8.11 1957.54
The politics folder has a loose set of rules, yes, but they are to be enforced by the administrators and moderators. You don't appear to be either of these things. Perhaps you should consider this a warning.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 72

Posts: 952/1084
EXP: 3213529
For next: 110249

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 6422 days
Last activity: 6419 days
#48 Posted on 11.8.04 2113.15
Reposted on: 11.8.11 2117.01
    Originally posted by Lafayette
    Why yes, and I would submit that I know more then even you on this subject.


No, I know more than YOU!!! And, I bet my dad can beat up your dad!


    International community, International body you can say it anyway you want. I fail to see a difference aside from splitting at hairs.


International community = Every country in the world and how they interact with one another.

International body = a group with a defined purpose whose member's are representatives from different countries, i.e. NATO, the U.N., OPEC, the Olympic committee, etc.

If you cannot see the difference between these two terms, then I would wager good money you do not know more than me on this subject.


    This would never have been brought up at all if it were not for a handful of radical, leftist Democrats like Sheila Jackson Lee and her cronies. They raised hell demanding our election be overseen by European Socialists crying about the 2000 election results (whats new?) The State Dept meaning Powell and his deputy agreed to let the Socialists from Europe monitor our elections.


I would love a quote from anybody, they don't even have to be a Democrat, asking for "socialists to oversee our election."


    I believe I stated this more then once so maybe you could do a little more research as there are rules about repeating yourself in these forums.


Actually, you twice tied the Democrats into the State Dept, without bothering to point out that the two have no ties to one another. You can keep repeating it, however, as it doesn't change the fact that this isn't the first time U.S. elections have been monitored, and that this would seem to be common procedure for the OSCE.


    The "monitoring team" is from European countries. The majority of Europe belongs to the Socialist European Union. Again, the International Community.


You just lost me. Again, I have never said anything about "international community" as it's a nebulous term, and doesn't really apply here in the first place. The issue involves an international body. Yes, it is mainly comprised of European nations (the SHOCK!!!), but I'm not quite sure what that has to do with anything. In fact, I would wager that most bodies that the U.S. is part of that have the word "European" or "Europe" in their name have a decent amount of European countries in them.


    Hope that cleared things up for you that go around.


If anything, it made things worse. I've tried defining some key terms that would make your point clearer, but you already refused to use them.


    The clear fact is this would never have even been an afterthought had not the Jacobin Democrats demanded it in the first place. Powell is to blame for actually going along with the scheme.




Call me crazy, but if there had been no problems with the 2000 election in the first place, this probably wouldn't be a problem.
Nag
Landjager
Level: 66

Posts: 678/904
EXP: 2391067
For next: 70797

Since: 10.1.03
From: Enter your city here

Since last post: 5612 days
Last activity: 3667 days
Y!:
#49 Posted on 12.8.04 0106.34
Reposted on: 12.8.11 0107.28
    Originally posted by dMp
      Originally posted by Nag
      I guess its no big deal in 2004 that an international team of advisors is going to quietly monitor the U.S. election, we will be used to it by 2008. So used to it in fact, that by 2012 we grant them some legal powers just a few however, and just a few more in 2016. So, I doubt you will even think twice in 2020 when French-born Maria Fracies Alibabu has more say in who runs the U.S. government then John and Jane Six-pack. But hey, its not all for naught, I'm sure someone will make millions selling the Declaration of Independence on E-Bay. It will be the most expensive piece of tissue paper in history.

      Until we get a third party that runs a true America First policy, and stops whoring our working class to NAFTA and the WTO in the name of Wal*Mart. A party who boots out these internationalists out of the government, then we are going straight to hell. Maybe true isolation isn't possible, but we need to get as close to that point as is attainable.


    Ok. really serious question. Do you really believe what you say? Do you really think that if some comittee takes an objective look at your elections (something that happens in a lot of countries, not just 3rd world ones) in a few years they will be running your country? Do you think that this is the first step to relinguishing control over your democratic process?


Yes, I believe everyword of what I wrote, with exception going to the E-Bay comment. And I am such a fool for thinking that in 2020 FOXNBCAOLTIMEWARNERCBSWALMART wouldn't have a reality TV series to give it away.

But is it outlandish as you make it out to be? Ask any of your statesman who were alive in May 1940 if they thought the same country who was dropping bombs onto your buildings would, 50/60 years later, would dictate your economy and various aspects of government policy, and soon your military? If they say Yes? Ask them about June 1945, if they thought the same thing.

Just the same, I would ask that generation of Americans, just how outlandish it sounds, that unhappy Europeans could pressure our government via the WTO into dropping tariffs meant to keep jobs in America. And sure enough, they whored off our middle class in the name of Internationalism. All I have to do is walk outside here in Ohio and see what globalization and the NWO has done to this once thriving community. I see nothing but broken homes, broken promises and broken bottles.

So an international body that oversees a Florida 2000 situation, the possibilities are strong.






DrDirt
Banger
Level: 106

Posts: 1098/2743
EXP: 12414625
For next: 257359

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2336 days
Last activity: 2238 days
#50 Posted on 12.8.04 0728.15
Reposted on: 12.8.11 0729.06
All I got out of this was observers. When were they going to be able to alter our way of life. This could result both parties being satisfied with what happens.

As a side note, maybe we realize now what it feels like when we stick our nose in other countries affairs. No matter how noble the intentions, it sticks in your craw.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 161

Posts: 1752/7105
EXP: 53019239
For next: 1093994

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 928 days
Last activity: 928 days
#51 Posted on 12.8.04 1017.58
Reposted on: 12.8.11 1022.07
    Originally posted by dMr
    M'kay, so because the US assisted (rather belatedly one may add) about 60 years ago in WWII, we simple Europeans should be eternally grateful and offer our support for anything you do today. How terribly relevant.

Oh, its the "USA didnt come into the war on time" argument again. Well, we didnt get involved, because it didnt fucking involve the USA until Pearl Harbor, and even then, the President was reluctant to become involved. Why is it when Britain and the rest of Europe are getting their asses handed to them, it was expected the USA should just jump up and commit troops to help out, yet when the USA has issues with Iraq, 3 of the 4 most powerful nations in Europe can't be bothered to help out? YOu brought up how the USA should somehow feel indebted to Europe for all thier help, I pointed out that D Day and the rest of the European Campain should have us in the clear as far as whom is endebted to whom, for quite some time.



    Damn straight! There ain't no terrorist cells in the good ole US of A. Its all the evil Europeans who harbour their nasty asses.


Yes, there are terror cells in the USA. I dont believe any of the hi jackers were living here, other than to attend flight school though. I guess half of them living in Hamburg was just a coincidence, no? ANd, isnt Paris the number one vacation destination for terrorist when the local law enforcement and governments in the middle east are on thier trail? Isnt it where Yassir Arafat takes off for a lot of the time? In fact, France goes far out of thier way to try to help Arafat and his cause. Arafat, the number one terrorist on the planet, easily linked to probably 90% of terror attacks on the planet in the past 25 years. And France supports him and berates Israel for trying to contain him and his efforts. Some collection of upstanding citizens they have running that government.


    And we've done SUCH a good job of proving that Iraq had a part to play in 9/11. Those Saddam/al Qaeda links have been disputed by, um, near everybody INCLUDING the UK government. Or is it OK because funding for terrorist organisations came from Iraq? And in that case is it OK for the UK and Ireland to go get some revenge for the millions of pounds worth of IRA, UVF etc. funding that came from the US?
Did Saddam pay money to the hijackers families? Yes.
Did Saddam pay money to any suicide bomber who met his end in Israel?http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml Yes. That's your link to TERRORISM. Not to mention 12 years of UN Resolutions that were ignored following the Gulf War.



    When you retaliated against Afghanistan for harbouring the man believed to be directly linked to the 9/11 atrocities you had wide ranging support. When you decided to take the 'war on terror' to nations with no proven link to 9/11, other countries had a problem with it. And geez, its TRULY already.

Again, more terrorism happened than on 9/11. ANd, the fact that not a single nation ever enforced the cease fire from the end of the first Gulf War doesnt mean that nobody ever should. We had resources there, and gave Sadam one last chance to comply and he didn't.



    God bless America and its good wholesome approach to international trade. No arms left your shores to go to Iraq. No siree.
Not since the end of the Gulf War, when it was, you know, PROHIBITIED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW. Unlike the Russian, Germany and (GASP!) French military gear found in Iraq, along with gear from smaller nations, such as Syria.


    And believing oppostion from EU countries was purely oil related is as naive as believing that oil was the sole motive for the US invading Iraq. Much more important in Germany's decision was their upcoming elections where polls were showing that the majority were against going to war.

Oh yes, IMMEDIATELY claiming they would not support any military action. What was Russia's vested interest? Was it Germany's upcoming election? And what about France? Same for them? Wow, you EU guys really DO stick together! So worried about your neigboring nations elections that you won't commit support for a war! It's just a very, very strange coincidence that all three were selling arms, and buying oil from Iraq, in violation of international law. But, I am SURE that had absolutely noting to do with it.


    To the best of my knowledge, Germany, Russia and France have not once stated that 'just sitting down and talking' to al Qaeda is the way forward.


So, inaction is thier suggestion? Why is inaction an acceptable plan of action, yet you slammed the USA for our percieved inaction during WW2?


    They opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Because of thier illegal dealings and cheap oil?



    As did many Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors. As did many Brits. As do many Americans. An overwhelming number of people who opposed the decision have no deals to get cheap oil fom Iraq.


And, an overwhelming number of people who support it had no deals either. What does that say? That some people oppose war, on a personal level. I can respect them. But, when nations oppose it, and the evidence is there to question if it is because of illegal oil contracts, and arms deals, I cannot respect that.




(edited by StaggerLee on 12.8.04 0822)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 3695/4700
EXP: 28678630
For next: 656451

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4704 days
Last activity: 3158 days
#52 Posted on 12.8.04 1033.24
Reposted on: 12.8.11 1041.21
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    So, inaction is thier suggestion? Why is inaction an acceptable plan of action, yet you slammed the USA for our percieved inaction during WW2?
Amazing how that works isn't it. It's our fault WW2 lasted as long as it did in Europe. Hell, if the French weren't so gung-ho for the punishing provisions and reparations in the Versailles treaty, or that fund word Appeasement after that, perhaps the European War would not have happened...
A Fan
Liverwurst
Level: 74

Posts: 757/1164
EXP: 3576443
For next: 77118

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 6992 days
Last activity: 6992 days
#53 Posted on 12.8.04 1039.19
Reposted on: 12.8.11 1043.59
Actually, Roosevelt wanted to go to war, but the public was very isolationist at the time. He did fund weapons and materials to Britain even though it violated a number of treaties signed with Germany. So, the U.S. helped when it could, but ultimatly the public needed to feel the ramifications of the war ie getting attacked before it would do anything. I do subscribe to the Pearl Habor conspiracy mainly due to most of the battleships that had that unscheduled withdrawl from the harbor at the same time they attack came. I believe in considences, but that one is too hard to swallow.

I would like to point out that Saddam paying for suicide bombings in Israel really has nothing to do with 9/11. Israel/Palestine was there before 9/11, so when we discuss reasons Saddam could attack the U.S. that shouldn't be one of them. I understand Israel is an ally, but at the same time so are the Palestine people on paper of course. I really feel no compassion for the Israel. They have enough hardcore kill every Palestine in the world in their government body members that I think if both of them wiped each other out it would do the world a favor. Neither side will have real peace and until one of them drops it will be never end. Its pointless to support either side, but since the Dems and Reps need Florida and New York to win, we have to give them money.

As to the real point of this thread which got totally lost once again to everyone bitching about the war. I say if we are a member of this organization then yes, we have to do the mature thing and let them see how they operate. The U.S. cannot keep ignoring treaties whenever it suits them, its time fucking grow up already. You make a deal stick to it, God is really that had.

JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 95

Posts: 1092/2159
EXP: 8645814
For next: 22824

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 5727 days
Last activity: 5724 days
Y!:
#54 Posted on 12.8.04 1039.55
Reposted on: 12.8.11 1044.11
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by StaggerLee
      So, inaction is thier suggestion? Why is inaction an acceptable plan of action, yet you slammed the USA for our percieved inaction during WW2?
    Amazing how that works isn't it. It's our fault WW2 lasted as long as it did in Europe. Hell, if the French weren't so gung-ho for the punishing provisions and reparations in the Versailles treaty, or that fund word Appeasement after that, perhaps the European War would not have happened...


Which in its own roundabout way works as a textbook case AGAINST isolationism.
SKLOKAZOID
Bierwurst
Level: 90

Posts: 768/1821
EXP: 6965439
For next: 223197

Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 1683 days
Last activity: 813 days
#55 Posted on 12.8.04 1042.50
Reposted on: 12.8.11 1045.14
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Did Saddam pay money to the hijackers families? Yes.


Source?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 3696/4700
EXP: 28678630
For next: 656451

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4704 days
Last activity: 3158 days
#56 Posted on 12.8.04 1102.28
Reposted on: 12.8.11 1102.59
I don't think he paid money to the hijackers families, but...
    Originally posted by A Fan
    I would like to point out that Saddam paying for suicide bombings in Israel really has nothing to do with 9/11.
...which is true. But we are at going after supporters of terrorism, not just terrorist groups and supporters of terrorism who have attacked us in the past.


    Which in its own roundabout way works as a textbook case AGAINST isolationism
Not US isolationism. The Europeans couldn't handle their affairs from 1919-1939. That has little to do with us.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 161

Posts: 1754/7105
EXP: 53019239
For next: 1093994

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 928 days
Last activity: 928 days
#57 Posted on 12.8.04 1111.45
Reposted on: 12.8.11 1114.24
    Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID
      Originally posted by StaggerLee
      Did Saddam pay money to the hijackers families? Yes.


    Source?


I remember seeing it on CNN, Sadam handing a check over to a widow. But, cannot find a link. So, disregard that portion, if you wish.
dMr
Andouille
Level: 97

Posts: 1373/2229
EXP: 9298756
For next: 18602

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 2843 days
Last activity: 1189 days
#58 Posted on 12.8.04 1135.05
Reposted on: 12.8.11 1137.11
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Oh, its the "USA didnt come into the war on time" argument again. Well, we didnt get involved, because it didnt fucking involve the USA until Pearl Harbor, and even then, the President was reluctant to become involved. Why is it when Britain and the rest of Europe are getting their asses handed to them, it was expected the USA should just jump up and commit troops to help out, yet when the USA has issues with Iraq, 3 of the 4 most powerful nations in Europe can't be bothered to help out? YOu brought up how the USA should somehow feel indebted to Europe for all thier help. I pointed out that D Day and the rest of the European Campain should have us in the clear as far as whom is endebted to whom, for quite some time.


I never said you should feel indebted to the Europeans for anything. I was saying that I think its inane to suggest Europeans should feel some sort of eternal debt to the US for a war that happened 60 years ago and blindly offer support at every turn in the future as a result.

Hey, don't think we don't appreciate it, but its irrelevant in my opinion in the current situation. I mean God knows how many of the Americans who fought in that war were of British or Irish descent if you go back far enough, so if you want to go with silly historical arguments we could claim to have largely helped ourselves.


    Yes, there are terror cells in the USA. I dont believe any of the hijackers were living here, other than to attend flight school though.


OTHER THAN GOING TO FLIGHT SCHOOL?! You don't think thats as big a deal as some of the cells living in Hamburg? All I was trying to say was that saying the Europeans should feel some sense of guilt any more than the US or other countries is ridiculous. Many nations could have done more to prevent the 9/11 attacks, and getting into tit for tat arguments abnout who is more to blame seems pointless to me. I'd sooner we all devoted our energies to learning from the mistakes made (as the US appears to be).



Hey, I'm not denying Saddam was an evil bastard or that he gave money to those families. We were lead to believe that he was involved in the attacks PRIOR to them happening though which is apparently not the case. And to my mind you can't use the UN resolutions as a reason to go in if the UN themselves say they feel there is a better course of action.


    Again, more terrorism happened than on 9/11. ANd, the fact that not a single nation ever enforced the cease fire from the end of the first Gulf War doesnt mean that nobody ever should. We had resources there, and gave Sadam one last chance to comply and he didn't.


I don't want to live in a world where the US, or any other nation including my own, has the right to hand out such ultimatums. With the backing of the UN or even NATO yes, but not without.


    Unlike the Russian, Germany and (GASP!) French military gear found in Iraq, along with gear from smaller nations, such as Syria.


One can only imagine how quick the UK and US forces would have been to unveil any weapons found to have originated from our countries....


    Oh yes, IMMEDIATELY claiming they would not support any military action. What was Russia's vested interest? Was it Germany's upcoming election? And what about France? Same for them? Wow, you EU guys really DO stick together! So worried about your neigboring nations elections that you won't commit support for a war! It's just a very, very strange coincidence that all three were selling arms, and buying oil from Iraq, in violation of international law. But, I am SURE that had absolutely noting to do with it.


OF COURSE it had something to do with it. Just as I believe the fact that Iraq has big ass supplies of oil influenced our decision to go in. But I don't think in either case that oil was the sole driving motive.


    So, inaction is thier suggestion? Why is inaction an acceptable plan of action, yet you slammed the USA for our percieved inaction during WW2?


No, I didn't 'slam' the US for their inaction, although I do believe they could have acted more swiflty in offering their support. I was actually more upset with your apparent assertion that the US 'won the war' for us which is not only exceedingly arrogant, but also entirely disrespectful to the millions who died fighting in WWII prior to the US becoming involved.

And the European nations you criticise are working like crazy to unearth terrorist cells and seize funds for terrorism. Not going to war does not constitute inaction.


    ....some people oppose war, on a personal level. I can respect them. But, when nations oppose it, and the evidence is there to question if it is because of illegal oil contracts, and arms deals, I cannot respect that.


Hey great, I really don't want to be getting into a slanging match with you over this. My point is that I don't think its any fairer to say that France et al opposed the war based on arms and oil dealings any more than its fair to say the US attacked because of the oil there. It was never a black and white issue. There was apparently a fair amount of evidence to warrant going in, but equally a case could be made for allowing the inspectors more time. To my mind things would have been much better if BOTH sides had tried a bit harder to reach a compromise, with the US and UK apparently set to go to war from the get go, and France and co apparently dead set against it. And I really hate the implication that they should have acted to repay a 60 year old debt.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 161

Posts: 1756/7105
EXP: 53019239
For next: 1093994

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 928 days
Last activity: 928 days
#59 Posted on 12.8.04 1203.46
Reposted on: 12.8.11 1205.53
dMr, I didnt mean to imply that the European community should follow the US blindly. If that is how I cam accross, I appologize. I know we didnt win WW2 by ourselves, I know it was from the sacrifice of millions of brave men from numorous nations, and if you took my words as a slight to them, I sincerely appologize.

But, I disagree with the assertion that the UN inspectors needed more time to do thier job, since they had been hamstrung by Iraq for over a deacade, and the international community kept letting them get away with it.
Time had come for them to stop preventing the inspections, and to be held accountable for thier end of the bargin. Like it or not, the US held up its end of the bagin, and it took Bush to force Iraq to live up to thier end, when they wouldnt, we went back in.

9/11 links to Sadam were not needed, IMO to justify action. Links to terrorists were and are known, and the UN resolutions were never enforced. That was due to previous administrations inactions.

AS far as the flight school goes, that obviously was the most important facet of the attack. Had we known more about them, and our immigration officials were more on the ball, this could have been prevented. But there are also times when meetings were held, all accross Europe where intellegence agencies knew they were going on, and did nothing. Its a world wide thing, and now that 9/11 has happened, many nations ARE stepping up, as well they should. THIs is an INTERNATIONAL cancer that needs to be slowed, I say slowed, because we know we can never stop it.

DrDirt
Banger
Level: 106

Posts: 1103/2743
EXP: 12414625
For next: 257359

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2336 days
Last activity: 2238 days
#60 Posted on 12.8.04 1228.43
Reposted on: 12.8.11 1229.03
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by StaggerLee
      So, inaction is thier suggestion? Why is inaction an acceptable plan of action, yet you slammed the USA for our percieved inaction during WW2?
    Amazing how that works isn't it. It's our fault WW2 lasted as long as it did in Europe. Hell, if the French weren't so gung-ho for the punishing provisions and reparations in the Versailles treaty, or that fund word Appeasement after that, perhaps the European War would not have happened...


Or as Germany invaded Poland, they had simply marched into Germany. Or if they had stood up during the Czech annexation. But you are right, if they had read their own history and realized how they were treated a century earlier, Hitler would likely never come to power.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: And you thought "Smackdown Your Vote" was a bad slogan.
Next thread: Damn Liberal Media
Previous thread: Anti-Americanism Overblown
(1229 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - International team to monitor U.S. Presidential electionRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2024 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.187 seconds.