|
|
|
|
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/2/2006 5:36:50 PM | The farce of your entire argument is based upon the fact that NONE of these invasive spying methods have proved effective over LEGAL ones.
In a time of emergency Bush's wiretapping could be legal if he had simply gotten a warrant AFTER the fact- but he was too lazy to do so.
If protecting the American people is so important to the president of the United States why was it so hard for him to take a few minutes and acquire a warrant AFTER the fact to ensure legality. Being president does not mean being above the law- as Bush seems to think.
It is only so long before people realize that when someone is constantly preaching about keeping you safe, protecting your freedom while eroding the very document that that freedom is based on - they are a fraud. Too pompous to see beyond their own actions.
xobella | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/2/2006 5:45:18 PM |
When these countries show they are trying to change to at least help themselves then maybe we will give more assistance. To keep throwing money at a situation that is not trying to change is worse because it causes dependency.
Then the liberals start screaming bloody murder once we pull funds that are enabling instead of upgrading the conditions.
Where are these countries governments whom should to the basic support such as education to teach the people how to fee themselves and not have so many babies?
. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/2/2006 6:09:17 PM | It's not a case of stopping funding, it's a case of applying funding where it can be properly used to create a sustainable economy.
There are many cases in which foreign aid being applied WITOUT STRINGS OR INTEREST attached, have made monumental differences in the world.
Read about the Marshall Plan.
When aid is applied with bad intentions it is no wonder that the funding is not allocated correctly. The government in receiving this aid, to pay back years of debt interest is often forced to slash social programs, like education in order to receive the funds. I agree with you that throwing money at the situation is no help in certain instances - but the US picks and chooses it's causes very strangely.
The King of Swaziland has 14 wives, half of them underage - last year he spent half of the countries' budget on a personal jet for himself- this country is being exploited, and yet you don't see American troops storming into that country "Smoking him out of his hole". Putting pressure on countries like Swaziland, or Sierra Leone to encourage political stability BEFORE providing assistance would help - but most of the time these debt-ridden countries are more concerned with cash-crop exports in order to pay back exponential interest debts. And the US is more interested in paying bargain-basement prices for mineral-based resources like diamonds from areas riddled with conflict. This causes governments in poor countries to focus less on building a solid social foundation, and concentrate on debt repayment only- which often is fueled by non-subsistence agriculture.
xobella | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/2/2006 6:21:13 PM | The King of Swaziland has 14 wives, half of them underage
So does King, mean a monarchy and the people know they have a monarchy So he did not( overthrow kill) the existing government and put in self in place as a dictator and then gases the people(Kurds) he did not like. | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 1155 | |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/2/2006 6:49:53 PM | Uh Oh X
I think you are starting to dig a hole here, that might be difficult to climb out of
With exactly whose gas did this other person kills the Kurds etc??
While all that was going on, the USA did not care less
Nor did anyone in the international community
This whole thing about we went there to save the Kurds etc etc, is just absolute rubbish
It had being going on for many many years, using weapons designed in the USA, supplied by the USA, and possiblly encouraged as a testing ground by the USA
It may turn out that there were a few valid reasons for attacking Iraq
I hope something comes up, because otherwise kids are dying and have died, for totally selfish reasons
But even suggesting it was to Save The Kurds, is way beyond believability
..
. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/2/2006 7:16:14 PM | ^^^
It was a quick example of what saddam has done during his reign. Not his entire history or the reason for going to war.
Read the story of how SADDAM HUSSEIN came to power and what he did during his reign
Here is a short bio to get you started
http://www.who2.com/saddamhussein.html | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/2/2006 7:23:34 PM |
So you are saying the Kurds life under Saddam was better than it currently is with the New Iraqi government.
I wasn't talking about Kurds.
I've noticed a pattern here. I ask questions, but instead of answering them, you try to steer the debate in a different direction. If the Bush administration is really as faultless as you say, why are you so hesitant to answer my questions? | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 1158 | |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/2/2006 7:25:44 PM | During Saadams Reign, whose weapons did he use??
Were those weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, supplied by USA and other Western Governments?/
Were those weapons used against Iraqi Kurds?
Chemical Ali was Saadams Cousin I believe and in charge of exterminating the Kurds
During this period did the USA/Western Powers try to stop him doing so?
It was only after 91 that any action was taken
I completely agree that his actions against the Kurds were terrible
But Western Powers ignored what was happening
They did not care less at the time
Now they suggest it as a excuse for the invasion,
But while it was happening on a large scale, they ignored it
..
. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/2/2006 11:17:26 PM | Well, it seems that Texas women can be every bit as ignorant and the men:
"The U.N. has always been useless as a means to prevent crimes against humanity, or anything else for that matter. The majority of its representatives are there solely to line their own pockets at the expense of some of the poorest and most downtrodden people on this earth, who are frequently their own countrymen. I agree that it is time to get them off U.S. soil - I don’t care where they go. I am sure France or Germany would be only too pleased to have them, as would many of the other countries who hate Americans. We aren’t always right, but at least we do try to help the poverty stricken, storm ravaged, and otherwise homeless and helpless people of this world."
Thanks for providing the latest in anti U.N. propaganda, reprocessed in Texas....
Ya, you've been such a big help to the the poverty stricken, storm ravaged, and otherwise homeless and helpless people of Sierra Leone; Zimbabwe; the Congo; .......oooops! There I go again, forgetting that all those countries HAVE NO OIL. Nice to see the good ol' USA being so altruistic in places like Iraq, where there is a LOT OF OIL.
- I take back what I said a couple pages ago about moving the U.N. to the South Pacific, wouldn't do much good down there. The U.N., yes you heard it here first kiddies, should be moved smack dab into the centre of Texas, right in downtown DALLAS. They could setup a new division, funded by Texas taxpayers, called the UNAIC - the UN Anti-Ignorance Commision, in an attempt to counter just some of the vitriolic crap coming out of lunatics like the ever brilliant DMutz:
"WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE HOMELESS AND HELPLESS PEOPLE WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THE us? We need to take care of our own first....the rest of the world can have the crumbs!
We spend trillions on other nations who refuse to help themselves...I say...cut the apron strings and sink or swim!"
- And ya, DumNutz, I know you don't live in Texas, you live in Texas North. By the way dummy, do you have even the remotest idea what a Trillion dollars amounts to? If you are so concerned about taking care of Americans at home, then why don't you do that with your trillions instead of visiting death and destruction on the rest of the world? Why don't you take care of the poor blacks from New Orleans? Why don't you get those ex-soldiers off your freeway exit ramps begging for a buck and babbling to their imaginary friends? And why don't you starting taking your meds again like a good little headcase? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 3:42:31 AM | MS
If you are trying to equate two grunt marines to high level UN officials,as a comparison to corruption. That question on it face does not even merit a response.
Liberals need to stop equating one organization to other organizations. First off marines put their life on line to protect Americans. The UN officials put other people’s lives in danger to line their pockets.
Stop shot gunning questions. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 3:55:10 AM | longte:
That is like saying if some one buys a gun from a Gun Retailer and goes out and kills 25 people the Gun Retailer is responsible.
Do not understand your logic | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 4:40:28 AM | ^^^No...it's like saying if a murderer uses an illegally gotten gun, to kill someone, the illegal gun trafficer is partly responsible. Especially, if they keep supplying the murderer with more guns, knowing he is a murderer.
More, about the Kurds...
1. Saddam's retaliations against the Kurds, were definitely brutal, excessive, and included illegal weapons (although, those who believe national security supercedes treaties, might not consider that part important).
2. However...he was not trying to exterminate Iraq's Kurdish race. He was using excessive force, against specific areas, that had sided with Iran, during the war. The villages destroyed, were along the Iran-Iraq border.
3. Those Kurdish rebels chose to kill their own people (other Iraqis and other Kurds) first. The "killing his own people" phrase, is propaganda. Not only did the Kurds also do it, the current Iraqi government is also "killing its own people"..."people" being violent rebels and supportive civilian areas they operate in.
4. The Kurds, have been fighting each other, and whoever was in authority, for hundreds of years...often as mercenaries...some for the Ottoman Empire, some for the Persian Empire. And, similar divisions carried on...some siding with Iran...some siding with Iraq (the latest, being in 1996...after Anfal, they still called for Saddam's and Iran's help, in killing other Kurds). The Iraqi Kurds also have conflicts with the PKK, from Turkey.
Democracy in Iraq or Ethnic Cleansing of the Assyrians?: http://www.aina.org/guesteds/20051225130652.htm (explore this site for a different perspective)
The Cia In Kurdistan: http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/dec96kurdi.htm
Good Kurds Bad Kurds: http://kurdistan.org/Current-Updates/hak.html
Kurds definitely deserve their equal place, in the world. But, they are not all peaceful innocent victims.
5. Saddam's chemical weapon use, against Kurds, according to the CIA in October 2002...Documented Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons: Aug 1983, Hajj Umran, Mustard, fewer than 100, Iranians/Kurds; Oct-Nov 1983, Panjwin, Mustard, 3000, Iranian/Kurds; Mar 1988, Halabjah, Mustard/nerve agents, hundreds, Iranians/Kurds
In all 3 cases, they list, there are Kurds and Iranians...never just Kurds...suggesting either a) they lied, to cover up for Saddam...or b) Iranian forces were there
6. The most extreme religious groups, in Iraq, are also Kurdish. That is where Ansar Al-Islam, the group Zarqawi supposedly joined up with, came from. And, they were there long before 2001.
Islamic Movement in Kurdistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_in_Kurdistan
Survey suggests widespread female circumcision in north: http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=44944
Peace  | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 5:50:09 AM | ^^
So you explain to me how this is not an anti-American stance. Since this Bush Administration had nothing to do with the sell of weapons.
Since you have just called American an accomplice to murder.
Americas will decide what is best to protect America and fight our battle. If Canadians want to complain that’s fine with me.. America does not owe Canada any explanation for why we go to war. Since it is Americans dying in this war and the ones who will die if terrorist get or developed something that will kill 100,000 people.
So you are also saying Saddam was justified to use the Gas against the Kurds. Lets be honest here. Don't say on one side it is terrible then say oh it was only because they were on the side of Iran. That is a feeble argument and not at all logical.
This is the most insane thing I have ever heard. So it is also okay to gas certain Kurds.
The more I hear how bad america is like what you this stated the more I say screw Canada.
| |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 6:23:20 AM | I really don't care about the changes in presidents. It's a foreign policy that has supported murderous dictators. If you deny that US foreign policy hasn't done such things, then you're delusional. Even your own government admitted to selling him stuff.
I said it was brutal, excessive, and illegal...so, you're the feeble one who can't read.
Peace | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 6:27:38 AM |
If you are trying to equate two grunt marines to high level UN officials,as a comparison to corruption.
It was a lot more than two, and it wasn't just marines. That small sampling of articles was just the tip of the iceberg. And if you want a high level example of corruption, what about "make the facts fit the policy"?
That question on it face does not even merit a response.
In other words, you can't find a good answer, so you avoid the question.
Liberals need to stop equating one organization to other organizations.
Really? Hmmm...
"The Bush administration did this."
Response: "Yeah, but the Clinton administration did that!"
"The US government is responsible for this."
Response: "Well, look what the UN is responsible for!" | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 6:41:15 AM | The Bush administration did this."
Response: "Yeah, but the Clinton administration did that!"
Two people who server in the same office reasonable to compare one to the other. What was the precedence the last administration set.
If you guys are this brain dead to not see the difference than taking to non similar organizations.
Yes what a prior administration has done has a lot to do with the one coming in office.
I should not even have to explain this.
So if we are in a war and we elect a new president we stop the war because this president’s administration had noting to do with.
It is to silly to even talk about
You are getting read to elect someone, so the current prime-minister should just leave prior to the other one taking office and no turn over or how they were dealing with certain matters of National Security should be discussed.
That is insane. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 6:46:45 AM |
Since this Bush Administration had nothing to do with the sell of weapons
Yes what a prior administration has done has a lot to do with the one coming in office.
I should not even have to explain this.
Peace | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 7:01:22 AM |
really don't care about the changes in presidents. It's a foreign policy that has supported murderous dictators. If you deny that US foreign policy hasn't done such things, then you're delusional. Even your own government admitted to selling him stuff.
I not sure about your foreign policy, believe it or not they are dynamic. Meaning they change from year to year. So you want to hold America accountable for foreign policy of the 1970 in year 2005.
So lets go back in history to all countries and hold all accountable for past foreign policies. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 7:02:17 AM | I really don't care about the changes in presidents. It's a foreign policy that has supported murderous dictators. If you deny that US foreign policy hasn't done such things, then you're delusional. Even your own government admitted to selling him stuff."
Open...before you cast judgment I think you should be looking at your own governments sale of Candu's to any country that wants it. Take a look at the countries Canada has either sold to or intends to sell to in the future and you may be shocked or at least you should be. From the nuclear power reacter India made it's first Nuke Bomb. Pakistan is said to have provided North Korea the technical date obtained from Canada to develop nuclear weapons and in turn North Korea assisted Iran into developing it's nuclear program. Canada has sold plutonium to Britian and the US to use in nuclear bombs and over half of the world's production of uranium from mines is in Canada and Australia. Canada may be quiet but Canada is sure not an innocent bystander... | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 7:04:00 AM | Yes what a prior administration has done has a lot to do with the one coming in office.
I should not even have to explain this.
Yes, one comming in office reevaluates the foreign policy and decides what policy is best for the current situation.
What was the past administration doing, what worked well, what didn't work well. what is the current threat...etc.
I know damn well you are just arguing to argue | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 7:08:55 AM |
Canada may be quiet but Canada is sure not an innocent bystander...
I know. I've never said they were. Canada has lots of sucky policies too. Didn't know this topic was about Canada though.
Peace | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 7:15:22 AM |
Yes, one comming in office reevaluates the foreign policy and decides what policy is best for the current situation.
What was the past administration doing, what worked well, what didn't work well. what is the current threat...etc.
I know damn well you are just arguing to argue
Then you obviously don't know me...so, why not bother guessing that you do.
It's a policy that has been handed from president to president, for some time...that it's okay to support dictators. Bush is still using it.
Peace | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 8:12:26 AM |
Yes what a prior administration has done has a lot to do with the one coming in office.
I should not even have to explain this.
That would be a reasonable argument, if it wasn't for the fact that when a Bush supporter brings up Clinton, it is almost always about the 'sexual relations' issue. So, please explain how that has a lot to do with what Bush is doing.
I notice that you also completely avoided my other example:
"The US government is responsible for this."
Response: "Well, look what the UN is responsible for!" | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 8:25:12 AM | [The UN officials put other people’s lives in danger to line their pockets.]
You state this like it is a tried and true fact- even though you are basing it entirely on an opinion formed by one side of the fence. Have you ever been involved with the UN? What about gone on a UN peacekeeping mission? Can you devalue ALL of the work that the UN has done, simply by excercising your own bias? The U.N. general assembly is fundamentally important so that each member can feel they have some say in foreign policy and aid matters - in your perfect world, do these countries shut up and bow down to the needs and desires of the United States? The Western world has been abusing and exploited the resources of the 3rd world for years- and I'm sorry to say with the recent development of contractors and the troops that protect them in Iraq - the US troops have been sent to secure the next 40 years of fuel for our SUVs- and not the country of Iraq. It is alot easier to pump oil into a pipeline than to create stability in a widely divided country.
The UN is not perfect - and nobody here is pretending they are, but the foreign policy of the United States is SO flawed that it is ridiculous to suggest that you have the moral superiority to demolish the United Nations and all that is has done.
[Since it is Americans dying in this war and the ones who will die if terrorist get or developed something that will kill 100,000 people.]
Are you talking about the war in Afghanistan as well? Several Canadian troops have been killed, if you weren't aware. If this hypothetical attack were to happen- (no matter how unlikely) than it would be President Bush's fault for failing to maintain national security- As Chairmen Kean said. National security REALITIES , not the rhetoric that does not help or save ANY american.
[Canada may be quiet but Canada is sure not an innocent bystander...]
This is your only defense?.. Hmmm, last resort much?.. This is like Bush's 'The democrats saw it too, clinton did it too, the british intelligence agencies saw the same information, BLAH BLAH BLAH-- Have we actually reversed ourselves to playground-level arguments? One act is not forgiven by the presence of another- the act still exists!
And anyways.. If you really want to compare the US to Canada as a WHOLE as far as foreign policy goes I'm sure you would NOT be happy with the results.
xobella | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/3/2006 9:36:32 AM | "The Western world has been abusing and exploited the resources of the 3rd world for years'
bella...what resources have the US exploited from what 3rd world countires....other than what they received from Canada of course... | |
|
|
| Page 47 of 54
|
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 |
|
Home
login 
