D:S, once again i am disagreeing with you. The “liberal backlash” 11-odd years ago was quite limited compared to what was expected, i think (given that they are, afterall, liberals). What i’m finding happens too much in American (and increasingly in the media and Canadian) politics is that statements are strewn about in a manner similar to two parties at a negotiating table - both come out with extreme statements hoping that the other side will temper their arguments. Does anyone (even Bush) expect that they and their rhetoric will be believed? No, not if they have an iota of common sense. They hope that something less than their rhetoric will be believed - something close to what they themselves believe.
So anyway, one might not say that Bush is lying so much as emphasizing his point about the Iraqi’s needing to be attacked (again).
As for the UN - while it’s true that Americans lost the majority of the lives and and security sacrificed on 9/11, many Canadian (and German, English, etc.) nationals perished as well - in the planes and in the towers. It too might be useful for Bush to get some backing in the international arena before an attack - as America continues to unilaterally attack and bomb other countries, the rest of the world loses sympathy for America - both her issues and her people. This happens regardless of whether America is “right” or not. With UN backing, then Bush will have a larger cheque to cash when the need arises.

T_6,
Even JFK made mistakes. Please, tell us how he’s wrong.

In reality THERE ARE NO TRUE COMMUNIST COUNTRIES/GOVERNMENTS TODAY. If I remember correctly, in another string, some of us discussed the fact that the communist system cannot exist in the world as we know it. Capitalism/money, and maybe a few other things, would leak into the system screw it up.

Anybody remember that conversation? - Xi

I don’t recall anyone ever giving a thorough defense/defence :P of their quotes on this site. Mostly just mild or complete agreement. There are many great quotes with which I disagree.
Don’t assume. Keep me out of it. :D I will continue to post as I see fit. - Xi

“It is bad luck for world history that of
all people the Russians adopted Communism,
because they are totally unfit for it.”

• Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Swiss essayist.
  “The Marriage of Mr. Mississippi”, pt. I (1952).
  –-----------------------------
  Now, he’s got a point! :wink: - Xi

@DS:

TG Moses VI, Bush doesn’t need to get Congress’s approval if he wishes to attack Iraq. Therefore, it doesn’t really make a difference if Congress is devided.

By acting unilaterally (even within the US), Bush will be cooking one war even I won’t. Most Americans do support (60-70%) do support and invasion of Iraq, but only 30% if Bush fails to get approval by either UN or the Senate. CC, would be right in predicting a backlash of sorts.

@DS:

Yanni, how is President Bush lying to you?

Every politican lies - deal with it. However, the speech Bush gave to UN wasn’t that distorted from the truth. I fail to see any outright lies.

@DS:

Does anyone truly want Saddam to stay in power?

And the transition of power can be absolute anarchy - even worse.

@CC:

The “liberal backlash” 11-odd years ago was quite limited compared to what was expected

Quite limited? Do you know the narrow majority Bush Sr. recieved from the Senate on attacking Iraq those years ago? Also there was a pretty strong anti-war protest (testament of the liberal media), though even they were quickly silenced in victory.

@CC:

So anyway, one might not say that Bush is lying so much as emphasizing his point about the Iraqi’s needing to be attacked (again).

The lies?

Why should Bush waste anymore time and energy trying to convince other countries to join us? He’s laid out the facts, and repeated them many times. If the other countries don’t want in on it, just say so. Let’s face it, we really don’t NEED Candada or any other country with us to defeat Iraq. Militarily wise, we can defeat pretty much anyone. I think the hesitation from the other countries is because they have an Arab minority, and they want to hold off upsetting these people as long as possible. I’m referring to Germany and France in particular.

T_6,
Even JFK made mistakes. Please, tell us how he’s wrong.

Are you confusing me with someone else? :o I never said JFK was a bad president, in fact he was one of the few Democratic Presidents I actually liked. But if you looking for “wrongs” - look no further than Bay of Pigs.

In reality THERE ARE NO TRUE COMMUNIST COUNTRIES/GOVERNMENTS TODAY.

BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah… tell me something I don’t know.

If I remember correctly, in another string, some of us discussed the fact that the communist system cannot exist in the world as we know it. Capitalism/money, and maybe a few other things, would leak into the system screw it up.

That’s funny. It didn’t seem like I was around when this anti-communist string, wrote it was a fact that communist system cannot exist. Hmmmmm… :-?

There are many great quotes with which I disagree.

And yet you post them. You post some wildly fraudulent quotes (ex. hey, Mao was a communist! Sure…), and you expect me not disprove them? Tst, tst, tst…

“It is bad luck for world history that of
all people the Russians adopted Communism,
because they are totally unfit for it.”

The Russian peasantry and proletariat were very loyal to communism and strived to build a workers state. The main shortfall was the lack of skilled labor, capital, technology, food, and isolation that proved to be a great burden. If there was any fault, it lied with the Rightist “Stalinist” Regime and their kulaks, not of the inability of the Russian masses.

@DS:

He’s laid out the facts, and repeated them many times. If the other countries don’t want in on it, just say so.

Diplomacy takes time. Don’t get impatient. I would much rather have the US be prepared for war and it’s likely outcomes and consequences than to be bold and rash in action. Remember, Bush Sr. had to wait 6 months after Kuwait was conquered.

@DS:

Why should Bush waste anymore time and energy trying to convince other countries to join us?

And you would risk crippling relations of foreign policy over this?

Let’s face it, we really don’t NEED Candada or any other country with us to defeat Iraq. Militarily wise, we can defeat pretty much anyone.

It is true that we can pretty much “go it alone” in terms of military (Saddam’s military is in poor shape compared with 1991). However, what Bush needs more than arms is approval. If you are against the whole international community, then you are in sense on the same level as Saddam. Think about it.

@TG:

And you would risk crippling relations of foreign policy over this?

It won’t cripple foreign relations if we go it alone. None of the other countries really care if Saddam lives, they’re just trying to cover their own butts.

@Yanny:

President Bush is getting very desperate. Not only did he have nothing to say during his speech to the UN except citing a few old points, but he is now deliberately lieing to us, the American people.

This seemed to imply Bush was lying in front of the UN during his speech, not with his meeting with Blaire (which I’m unaware of that particular part).

None of the other countries really care if Saddam lives, they’re just trying to cover their own butts.

Regardless, I don’t think anybody wants US to become the big bully. US should be more of an eagle protecting others - not a hawk. By going against UN, show that US government only cares for itself and only listens to UN when it suits them.

@TG:

"Communism has never come to power in a country
that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both.

• John F. Kennedy, Speech, July 3, 1963, to NATO.

False! Please, get your facts straight!

You said it! Fill us in. - Xi

Oh, I forgot . . .
Blah blah :wink: blah, blah, blah blah :roll: blah blah blah. - Xi :P

@Deviant:Scripter:

TG Moses VI, Bush doesn’t need to get Congress’s approval if he wishes to attack Iraq. Therefore, it doesn’t really make a difference if Congress is devided.

A democratic state who can declare an (aggressive) war w/o democratic process? hmmm… scary!
Just imagine someone who is just slightly more nuts than G.W. …

@Xi:

Britain has been on board since day one. France and Germany are going slow since they have a large Muslim minority and want to avoid backlash as long as possible. The US accepts the responsibility to lead this time, as we did in Persian Gulf War I. I wish to thank Great Britain for leading patiently during WWI. The US was isolationist until July 8. 1941, but we had great teachers(GB, Winnie and Monty).

Oh my god.

Britain has not been with you since day one, but was the first to follow.
The reason for Germany and France to not follow you blindly is because we have eyes that are open to see.
The sentence about WWI and the US being isolationist have no common thread, unless WWI is a typo and should read WWII.

Xi and numbers aren’t friends.

@F_alk:

@Deviant:Scripter:

TG Moses VI, Bush doesn’t need to get Congress’s approval if he wishes to attack Iraq. Therefore, it doesn’t really make a difference if Congress is devided.

A democratic state who can declare an (aggressive) war w/o democratic process? hmmm… scary!
Just imagine someone who is just slightly more nuts than G.W. …

You better not be talking about me F_alk :evil:
mind you, no one believes i have GW’s power, so i guess that’ not really likely . . . :lol:

F_k,
It has been argued that the US Congress gave W the power by their Sept. 14, 2001 declaration in writing. It gave him the power to go after the terrorists. If he makes the connection, BAM . And before congress has to okay it it’s done. :D
However, W isn’t gonna play a Clinton. G.W. Bush will play nice-nice with the mean old Democrats. The Mean Old Democrats who demand to know how much the war will cost. The same MODs who gave Clinton the Get Out of Jail Free card on the Yugowar! No questions asked. The same MODs who won’t have hearings(and the law states that they must all have hearings) on President Bush’s judicial appointees. Oh, I’m sorry, a few did have hearings, but WEREN’T PUT UP FOR A VOTE! Akbv MODs playing politics, hoping to pull a double house victory in November! ZTVEL!

“You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country?
Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.”

• William Jefferson Clinton
  –-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Excellence is a learned habit. - Xi

Britain with us? Tony Blair is with us. Show me a poll where more than 30% of the British people actually back an attack.

I think you are trying to skew statistics a little too much to your liking. I have seen the polls - and 71% oppose military action against Iraq (as you said) – however, there was one little fact that forgot to mentioned: unless it is endorsed by the UN. Obviously this changes the slant of things dramatically. Personally I would support an invasion by Bush without first the support of the Senate or the UN (again, this same thing happened in the “Newsweek Poll”).

France and Germany anywhere near helping us? Right.

Do you need their help? Probably not, though I think approval would be a step in the right direction. Again, I will say that heads of the French and German state want to ensure that any war has the UN seal of approval.

You wanna go after Terrorism? Check out Sudan.

I know this has been talked about as with Yemen, so I wouldn’t count it out.

And remember, Russia has Veto power in the UN. And just signed a huge trade deal with Iraq.

I know that Russian oil companies do have a vested interest in Iraq, though have not chosen to develop them until after the political situation is settled. Russian isn’t going to mess up its relationship with the US because of Iraq.

@Yanny:

Saddam is not a terrorist. Saddam is a dictator in a Sovereign. This war is about going after terrorists, not going after dictator in the world.

You wanna go after Terrorism? Check out Sudan.

The President of the United States made it crystal clear after 9/11 that we will make no distinction between terrorists and those countries harboring terrorists.

@Deviant:Scripter:

@Yanny:

Saddam is not a terrorist. Saddam is a dictator in a Sovereign. This war is about going after terrorists, not going after dictator in the world.

You wanna go after Terrorism? Check out Sudan.

The President of the United States made it crystal clear after 9/11 that we will make no distinction between terrorists and those countries harboring terrorists.

Yeah,
i really hope that someone who was blamed to be a terrorists sues the US for some trillion dollars:
that would beat one major US-“flaw” with another.