Democracy or hypocrisy

[look]

Today at 12:26 PM datan said this in Post #34



Oh, but it does. Its a signatory to the United Nations Charter. It helped to craft those very terms. Ain't life a(I think I have asked you not to do this)when your words come back to bite you?

Let me put it this way: if the US decides to act outside the UN Charter, on what basis is the US going after Iraq? UN resolutions? But isn't the US acting outside the UN charter? What moral authority does it have for going after a country which is violating UN resolutions when it has just decided to do away with the UN charter?


(Did you get that from Bush's speech? Well, don't believe everything he tells you.)

Could you give us a reference from the U N Charter to show that the US is acting outside the Charter?

Could you show, using Resolution 1441, how the US and the coalition of the willing is violating the resolution?

I'd very much like to see how this works.

 

[look]

Today at 01:58 AM CommonAncestor said this in Post #4

Before we worry about Iraq, we need to worry about North Korea. Does North Korea have 112 Billion barrels of oil? No! Does North Korea have nuclear missile capability? Yes! Iraq as a U.S. threat is totally unfounded and is a total waste of money to pursue. The fact that we have a president and vice president who are ex- oil company tycoons speaks volumes on why the united states of america is being led into disaster in the middle east.

I guess that explains the sad state of the US when Dubya was inaugurated.

 

[paulewog]

Oil tycoons.... I seriously doubt that's the reason for the war. Heh. I don't understand why everyone thinks Bush is a huge liar

 

[datan]

Could you give us a reference from the U N Charter to show that the US is acting outside the Charter?

Could you show, using Resolution 1441, how the US and the coalition of the willing is violating the resolution?

I'd very much like to see how this works.

well, I would, but your use of the term "coalition of the willing" makes me wonder whether you've been seduced by government propaganda & would parrot whatever Bush says (although I could be wrong about this).

Anyway, look through some of the other active threads; this issue has been covered extensively before, and I have no intention of repeating all the arguments.

I'm not sure if you're trying to start a debate or are genuinely interested in knowing more about international law.

 

[datan]

Today at 10:16 PM paulewog said this in Post #43

Oil tycoons.... I seriously doubt that's the reason for the war. Heh. I don't understand why everyone thinks Bush is a huge liar

1. tax cuts - who do they benefit? Why does the economy need it (he pushed it both when the economy was booming and when it is in recession)

2. the whole UN thing. The way he misrepresents the issue. What does Iraq have to do with Sept-11 and terrorists? Does any one really believe that he intended to let UN inspectors run their course, or was he out to get Saddam right from the start? And now he's blaming the fact that he can't get 9 votes on France.

 

[paulewog]

Iraq has to do with Sep. 11 because terrorists could easily get weapons from Hussein. Easily.

Tax cuts - who do they benefit? Easy. People that make money. He hasn't been able to get many tax cuts though.

The fact that he pushes it both when the economy was booming and when it was in recession proves, to me, that he IS DOING what he said he would do.

 

[datan]

Today at 10:26 PM paulewog said this in Post #46

Iraq has to do with Sep. 11 because terrorists could easily get weapons from Hussein. Easily.

Not a shred of evidence. You're going to war over an entirely hypothetical situation. You're going to kill tens of thousands of people over some "what-if".

So--remember the guy who blew up the OK City building? He was a terrorist wasn't he? Gee, maybe we should round up all white extremists since one of them could easily do the same thing again...

That is what your argument boils down to: you have no evidence that suggestes that Saddam would allow his weapons to be used by terrorists (one argument is that Saddam is too smart to do that since he would be annihilated by the US--but that's a moot point now), so you're using a "what-if" to try to justify your actions.

The fact that he pushes it both when the economy was booming and when it was in recession proves, to me, that he IS DOING what he said he would do.

yeah--but he gives exactly opposite reasons.

"the economy is booming. We should cut taxes else the economy will overheat and inflation will set him."

"the economy is in a recession. We should cut taxes so that the rich and businesses will have more money to spend and stimulate the economy"

 

[paulewog]

Where did the "tens of thousands" of people come in

Yes, I remember Timothy McVeigh. He was executed, if I remember right.

We do have evidence of Hussein having weapons he shouldn't, don't we? What, is he just holding those weapons in his hands just for fun? That's not a what-if.

I do not at all support the idea that we should wait until we get a nuclear bomb thrown at us, THEN go to war. That makes no sense whatsoever.

- where did you quote his reasons from?

As for the "rich and businesses" - maybe if more tax cuts were let through, he'd be able to benefit more of the population. As it is, only a few tax cuts have ever gotten through congress.

I also find it kind of funny how many people decide to think Bush is lieing about a lot of things, but believe everything the media says.

 

[look]

Today at 06:50 AM Dopeuter said this in Post #10


now, for those whole love rhetoric
That wouldn't make any difference thou because Bush is having this war regardless of democratic process and popular advise against it from good countries like France who gave the US there liberty after helping the US become independent from England.
Lets face it, America is only a child with a Childs mind in comparison to the great nation of France who liberated Americans to allow them to have there own independence but all I hear is how the US was the ones to liberate France considering the US owed them that and still left them to Hitler until it was way to late???

Begging your pardon? When and how did France 'liberate' The United States?

Actually, the United States is older than the present form of government that presently governs France. If you are saying that France has been around longer than The United States, that would be incorrect. Now the land of present day France has been around as long as the land of present day United States.

If these objections have been addressed in another post, please forgive me. I have a habit of responding to each post as I come up on them.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Dopeuter.......weather Bush is right or wrong....france does not have a say so in matters dealing with US national security.

The great nation of france?.......Whatever.

 

[look]

Today at 05:17 PM datan said this in Post #44



well, I would, but your use of the term "coalition of the willing" makes me wonder whether you've been seduced by government propaganda & would parrot whatever Bush says (although I could be wrong about this).

Anyway, look through some of the other active threads; this issue has been covered extensively before, and I have no intention of repeating all the arguments.

I'm not sure if you're trying to start a debate or are genuinely interested in knowing more about international law.

Don't panic! I only was interested in how you could make those statements like that. It looked like rhetoric to me, that's why I asked for clarification. As for the issue being discussed in other threads, if it's not in this thread, I would appreciate it if you could post a link to it. I mean, how do I know if you're not trying to dodge my questions?

I, for a lack of a better term, used the expression, 'coalition of the willing' to quite simply indentify the subject matter, that's all. I think you are reading a tone in my posts.

 

[Rae]

Pantera said, erroneously:
Did these same people protest the Kosovo war? No!

Rae:
Uh...::waves hand:: I protested the war on Kosovo. I even went to Washington, D.C., to protest it, as well as to a few local protests in my area. My husband went with me.

Be careful what claims you make. You may be more easily refuted than you think.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Ok. Let's say Saddam has 0 weapons of mass destruction....

Let's say he now poses no threat to his neighbors...

Let's assume he presently has no terrorists in his country, and does not support terrorism....

Fact: He has already killed many thousands of his own people with poison gas.

Fact: He has already invaded two of his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait), and had to be driven out by force.

Fact: He has already shot missiles at Israel who posed no threat to his country.

Fact: He has already began to develop nuclear weapons  and would have them by now if Israel had not destroyed his reactors.

Forget about the present accusations and fears. The undeniable facts listed above would justify the events that are about to take place.

 

 

 

[Rae]

Fact: Israel is in violation of more U.N. resolutions than Hussein. Let's nuke the ***$$$ out of them.

 

[paulewog]

Thanks for pointing those out, you're better informed then I am heh.

 

[datan]

Yesterday at 11:22 PM look said this in Post #51


Don't panic! I only was interested in how you could make those statements like that. It looked like rhetoric to me, that's why I asked for clarification. As for the issue being discussed in other threads, if it's not in this thread, I would appreciate it if you could post a link to it. I mean, how do I know if you're not trying to dodge my questions?

I, for a lack of a better term, used the expression, 'coalition of the willing' to quite simply indentify the subject matter, that's all. I think you are reading a tone in my posts.

this was discussed in detail in:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/38982.html

OK here's a brief summary:
1. When this resolution was voted, your own ambassdor said there were no automatic triggers for war.
2. Koffi Annan, UN Sect-General says that if America acted without UNSC, they would be acting outside the charter. That's all the authority I need.
3. Why was the US so anxious to get its second resolution, right until it realised it couldn't even get 9 votes and decided to blame France?
4. 1441 was passed by the UNSC on the explicit understanding that it did not call for war. IF we are arguing over what "serious consequences" mean, shouldn't we go back and see what the UNSC understood it to mean when they actually voted on it--not what Bush wants to inteprete it to mean, after the fact. That sounds rather underhanded and dishonest to me: tricking them to pass a resolution on the basis that it did not call for war explicitly, then turning around and saying it does.
5. IF 1441 clearly gives you the authority to attack Iraq, why does your ambassador and the UN Secretary General say it doesn't?
6. IF you are trying to enforce the UN's will, why not go back to the UNSC and see what the UN's will is? Is Bush afraid that the UNSC's will is not what he wants it to be?

If you wish to debate this issue, feel free to respond to that thread.

Also, the term "coalition of the willing" is a highly political term and comes straight from government propaganda, just like "the war on terrorism"

 

[Dopeuter]

Begging your pardon? When and how did France 'liberate' The United States?

Actually, the United States is older than the present form of government that presently governs France. If you are saying that France has been around longer than The United States, that would be incorrect. Now the <I>land </I>of present day France has been around as long as the land of present day United States.

Looks, the American nation are only very young in comparison to the French nation. It was the French nation that liberated The Americas giving America her independence from the British in the revolution and the and war of independence. This is were your statue of liberty comes from.

Then in WW2 , France called on America to return the favour and the US sat back and did absolutely nothing at all to help France while Hitler threatened her and then invaded her. America sat back and watched the whole invasion and didn’t lift a single finger to help France. It wasn’t until much later that America entered the war in Europe at a time were they could just walk into Europe and take what they wanted with ease, because all the forces had been destroyed. That was not to liberate France but rather to beat Hitler and become the dominating world power along with Russia.

So, when I hear the US laying right into the French because they claim France owes them something, I am very confused because it is the other way around. America let the French down disgustingly in WW2 and yet the US claims France owes them something???? Other way around I think.

If The US want to use history to have a go at France then going back even further in history proves that it is the US that is indebted to France and France owes the US nothing because the US sat back and watched Hitler destroy France without lifting a single finger.

 

[look]

Today at 07:51 PM Rae said this in Post #54

Fact: Israel is in violation of more U.N. resolutions than Hussein. Let's nuke the ***$$$ out of them.

Fact: Israel has never attacked any of her neighbors for 37 years. During that same time, she was attacked by all of her neighbors six times! It wasn't untill the French sold Iraq that reactor that she ever made a pre-emptive strike against any of her neighbors.

Fact: The Palestinians didn't even come into existence untill after the Six Day War of 1967. Yet the territory Israel won rightfully as the spoils of war, for the most part, Israel gave back. The so called 'territories' that the, again, so called 'palestinians' say Israel 'occupies', was part of Egypt and Jordan. Those two countries don't even want it back! Here's a little known fact. The 'palestinians' were chased out of Jordan by the early Hashimites as they came into power.

So anyway, what have you got against Israel? What does Israel have to do with the Iraqi war?

 

[look]

Today at 09:57 PM datan said this in Post #56



this was discussed in detail in:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/38982.html

OK here's a brief summary:
1. When this resolution was voted, your own ambassdor said there were no automatic triggers for war.
2. Koffi Annan, UN Sect-General says that if America acted without UNSC, they would be acting outside the charter. That's all the authority I need.
3. Why was the US so anxious to get its second resolution, right until it realised it couldn't even get 9 votes and decided to blame France?
4. 1441 was passed by the UNSC on the explicit understanding that it did not call for war. IF we are arguing over what "serious consequences" mean, shouldn't we go back and see what the UNSC understood it to mean when they actually voted on it--not what Bush wants to inteprete it to mean, after the fact. That sounds rather underhanded and dishonest to me: tricking them to pass a resolution on the basis that it did not call for war explicitly, then turning around and saying it does.
5. IF 1441 clearly gives you the authority to attack Iraq, why does your ambassador and the UN Secretary General say it doesn't?
6. IF you are trying to enforce the UN's will, why not go back to the UNSC and see what the UN's will is? Is Bush afraid that the UNSC's will is not what he wants it to be?

If you wish to debate this issue, feel free to respond to that thread.

Also, the term "coalition of the willing" is a highly political term and comes straight from government propaganda, just like "the war on terrorism"

Datan, thanks for the link, also for sharing your points with me.

 

[MetalBlade]

Today at 01:58 AM CommonAncestor said this in Post #4

Before we worry about Iraq, we need to worry about North Korea. Does North Korea have 112 Billion barrels of oil? No! Does North Korea have nuclear missile capability? Yes! Iraq as a U.S. threat is totally unfounded and is a total waste of money to pursue. The fact that we have a president and vice president who are ex- oil company tycoons speaks volumes on why the united states of america is being led into disaster in the middle east.

thats not entirely correct, you see N. Korea only has missle range of hitting Japan, not the US. Not even Hawaii, but they are crazy! We must really really use diplomacy to solve that problem or he will nuke everyone, around N. Korea. As for the main statement, it has been nailed and sludged to many times! Saddam is a&nbsp;killer, he has weapons of destruction because he used them on the Kurds and Iranians during that war (yes I am aware of the Iran Contra Scandal, we won't get into that right now). He has no respect for humanitarian efferots, and his son who rapes women for sport...Come on, these guys should be burning in the lake of fire! Overthrowing Saddam will be worth it, just give it a couple mroe centuries, if this world lastes that long!