We should not attack Iraq

[EmuGod]

@cystic:

sure EG - love to help. Trouble is, you’re nowhere near Winnipeg, and i have cardiology rounds for the next few weeks.
Any questions feel free to private message me.
what kind of biology?

THe forums were down so I couldn’t but I got 94% on it. I can’t believe I had to memorize the thickness of a microtubule and that wasnt even askedi n the end. What a waste.

[Guest]

@Ghoul:

Wow its been awhile, just got back for holidays….

Ok F_alk where is your proof that America is the only nation that spies on its allies?

And about your “American Dream” rant, have your arguments against me come down to you slamming my character?, taunts about grammar? Thats pretty weak on your behalf.
And, on top of all that, Im Canadian.
Maybe you should open your eyes and read before you type somthing and hand out insults.

You didn’t miss much, the site was down for about a week.
So, let’s have a look at America spying on allies (most links will lead to pages in german):
On the 7th of march 2000, James Woolsey, former CIA-boss, admitted it (see: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/6663/1.html).
One of the tools possibly used is the Echolon system, which was not only active in Europe but also in Japan. (http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7985/1.html).
For allies spying on the USA, all i found was that Israel is being classified as an “A”-country by the US.

For you being Canadian, and me mistaking you for US american, i apologoize. For taunting your grammar: The use of this emoticon ;) usually indicates “not serious”. For slamming your character: in the section of my post about the american dream the “you” i used was the “plural” you, like in “you all”. If this wasn’t clear from what i wrote, i will try not to let that misunderstanding happen again.

You still didn’t answer my question: Why do the US still produce (even illegal) WMD and still research on (even illegal) ones?

[Yanny]

“Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there.” - George W. Bush

So the President has the right to declare war now? Ever read the constitution?

Nam/Korea were wars. They were not declared wars. But, a large portion of the American economy was focused on fighting them. There were millions in the armed forces fighting them. There was a definate enemy.

[Mr Ghoul]

@F_alk:

@Ghoul:

Wow its been awhile, just got back for holidays….

Ok F_alk where is your proof that America is the only nation that spies on its allies?

And about your “American Dream” rant, have your arguments against me come down to you slamming my character?, taunts about grammar? Thats pretty weak on your behalf.
And, on top of all that, Im Canadian.
Maybe you should open your eyes and read before you type somthing and hand out insults.

You didn’t miss much, the site was down for about a week.
So, let’s have a look at America spying on allies (most links will lead to pages in german):
On the 7th of march 2000, James Woolsey, former CIA-boss, admitted it (see: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/6663/1.html).
One of the tools possibly used is the Echolon system, which was not only active in Europe but also in Japan. (http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7985/1.html).
For allies spying on the USA, all i found was that Israel is being classified as an “A”-country by the US.

For you being Canadian, and me mistaking you for US american, i apologoize. For taunting your grammar: The use of this emoticon ;) usually indicates “not serious”. For slamming your character: in the section of my post about the american dream the “you” i used was the “plural” you, like in “you all”. If this wasn’t clear from what i wrote, i will try not to let that misunderstanding happen again.

You still didn’t answer my question: Why do the US still produce (even illegal) WMD and still research on (even illegal) ones?

F_alk, its all good.

Maybe I should be more carful when I’m reading posts before I start jumping on someone.

As for the spying, your link did not work.
Its not that I think the US ISN’T spying on allies, I just belive they are not the only ones. I don’t look at them as the big bad guys.

I’m not sure I know what’s consider illegal in reguards to WMD.
I think chemical warheads are illegal, after that I don’t know.
The US, as far as I know it, has cut back their arsenal of WMD.
I don’t have a problem with US still making them though.
Maybe not illegal ones.

As a Canadian, I have nothing but thanks for the USA.
Canada would be up shits creek without the way the US handles itself.
We, as a country, have almost no military.
The US is are our defence.

I think back to 9/11 and if those planes hit in Canada, our Prime minister would have apologized.
Someone has to put their foot down…hard.
And, had it been the case that those planes hit Canada, who do you think would have been the first nation at our side…Thats right…The United States of America, demanded justice.
Our reation to 9/11, from our political leaders, was brutally embarrassing.

Anyhow, enough ranting.
I found a post from another forum that has an American’s take on the US and and their stand on foreign iusse that relate to the Iraq situation.
Its pretty good.

Quote
There is a genuine hypocrisy about Ameican foreign policy. We demand other nations subscribe to the UN resolutions, but maintain our veto, and refuse to accept constraints on our own actions. We want to avoid being the “world’s policeman”, but don’t want rival military buildup elsewhere. We promote democracy, but only if it votes our way. We want others to have the same rights we demand for ourselves, but only to insure our own citizens keep the priviledges they expect at home. We don’t meddle in other countries’ civil affairs, unless our economic interests are threatened. We demand human rights, just so long as it doesn’t cost us too much.
The U.S. has become the economic equivalent of the Borg. “We are Corp. Lower your tariffs and prepare to be acquired. Your existence as you have known it ends. We will add your economic and material resources to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.”

Now, I’m no pacifist. I love a good explosion as much as the next guy. But, there’s no wool being pulled over my eyes. The middle east is about oil, plain and simple. If we wanted to show some moral superiority, it would NOT be to bomb the hell out of stone age characters, or scare everyone here into surrendering their civil rights. Maybe, just maybe, it would involve something like, oh, charity - giving not just bread to make them dependent, but the technology to become independent.

I’m more than happy to continue this, but, I agree, not here. Maybe we should start another thread on the topic elsewhere.

One last thought: imagine that civil rights flared up again like in the 60’s, and riots started throughout the country. Perhaps even military intervention to quell rebellious militia, or martial law. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the UN sanctioned the US, until it restored basic liberties, perhaps even suggesting an international peacekeeping force? Should WE be allowed to have a civil war, when we don’t think anyone else should?
End Quote

Not that I totally agree…however, it
made me think twice about my stance on Iraq.

[Yanny]

Start a thread if you want :)

I love how President Bush has spent the last 3 weeks doing nothing but campaign for his fellow Republicans. He should be in office dealing with real issues. Damn politics.

[cystic crypt]

Mr. Ghoul - i completely agree w/ the quote you posted. I think i’d been trying to say the same thing (in different words) on this forum.
w.r.t. Canada being up shit creek w/out the Americans - i don’t believe that is true. W/out the US, Canadians might have a more powerful military, however i can’t reasonably see that many people wanting to come up here, when there is a perfectly pretty country down south. Also Canada has not made nearly as many enemies as the US. It’s one of those unwritten rules - the only people attack the pacifists are “The Man”. Put it another way, it’s wrong to kick a puppy. Do it downtown sometime and you’ll get taken down (or at least yelled at). Anyone silly enough to come at Canada for whatever reason would have much of the European community on its ass (well, 'cept for the French, of course :-? )

[DeviantScripter]

@cystic:

Mr. Ghoul - i completely agree w/ the quote you posted. I think i’d been trying to say the same thing (in different words) on this forum.
w.r.t. Canada being up sh*t creek w/out the Americans - i don’t believe that is true. W/out the US, Canadians might have a more powerful military, however i can’t reasonably see that many people wanting to come up here, when there is a perfectly pretty country down south. Also Canada has not made nearly as many enemies as the US. It’s one of those unwritten rules - the only people attack the pacifists are “The Man”. Put it another way, it’s wrong to kick a puppy. Do it downtown sometime and you’ll get taken down (or at least yelled at). Anyone silly enough to come at Canada for whatever reason would have much of the European community on its ass (well, 'cept for the French, of course :-? )

Canada chooses not to have a strong military right now, plain and simple. It’s got nothing to do with the United States stopping them. It’s pretty sad when you stop to realize that our New York Police has as many officers as Canada’s entire military.

Canada’s coast guard shows up to help in Afghanistan: http://chalkdust.org/stuff/canadian_coast_guard.jpg
… :wink:

[cystic crypt]

yeah, that pic is an old joke. in fact, it might well have been posted on another board here in the forums.
And you’re right - our military is inadequate. I think most people in the country agree. When our military is needed, then we produce heroic numbers of vehicals and soldiers, however our peacetime military is crappy. And why not? We’re not at war, we don’t provoke other nations to war with us, and many of America’s enemies are our trading partners. If America did not exist, and if we had not spent roughly the last 188 years building up an alliance of sorts with them, then we might need a vastly different military. But up until now, if America has defended us militarily, then i’d suggest its a deterrance. Otherwise our relationship with her has made us more of a target - maybe we need to increase our military for this reason?

[EmuGod]

America was Canada’s enemy until 85 years ago, when the Canadians and Americans fought together in the trenches of France in World War 1.

[Yanny]

However, even before WWI, the Canadians and Americans were important trade partners.

[Guest]

@Mr:

F_alk, its all good.

…

Nice quote you brought up there, especially the first part reflects my criticism on the US nicely.

For the not working links… sorry for that, looks like that news have been take out of the archive there.

[GeZe]

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

[yourbuttocks]

@GeZe:

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

Except no.

[DeviantScripter]

@yourbuttocks:

@GeZe:

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

Except no.

(Laughing my ass off) :lol: :lol:

[Guest]

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

[DeviantScripter]

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

[GeZe]

@yourbuttocks:

@GeZe:

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

Except no.

they had when I posted this

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

the question is: “would there be a need for a war on terror had Gore been elected?”
i’m being semi-facetious, but i have little doubt that GWB is an antagonizer and does little to promote world peace.

[dIfrenT]

George W. B. is more of a responder. Consider it on a way WAY smaller scale.

You have a family. There’s an arsonist wreaking havock two states away. Are you concerned? Not really. Sure you feel sorry for those who it’s happening to, and you might want to do something for them. The arsonist torches your home. Suddenly it’s personal and you need to react.

That’s where I see George W. B. The time for diplomacy is nearly gone. The true antagonists are not responding. They need to know that we’re not going to be played with. The attack on America was (for lack of words to truly describe it) completely unnecessary!

As for Al Gore. That would need a completely different topic. He doesn’t disgust me as much as Clinton did (and still does for that matter), but he’s not too far behind.

[DeviantScripter]

@cystic:

@Deviant:Scripter:

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

the question is: “would there be a need for a war on terror had Gore been elected?”
i’m being semi-facetious, but i have little doubt that GWB is an antagonizer and does little to promote world peace.

Oh, how could I have been so naive?
I couple months in office surely caused 9/11… :roll:

The more realistic theory, however, is that the terrorists knew they could get away with it, since they had been doing so during Clinton’s term in office. Why not test out the new president?

The attack on America was (for lack of words to truly describe it) completely unnecessary!

I would choose unprovoked and unjust. It was a complete back-track for their cause. There’s other ways to get your point across… :evil: