so whats every1s view on the US/Iraq situaton?

[futuro]

Originally posted by Pigeon


If you knew history, you'd know Puerto Rico is given the choice between becoming the 51st state or becoming their own sovereign country, or simply staying the way they are now. They do not pay income taxes or sales taxes to the US govt, although I think import taxes/tariffs still apply. I'm too lazy to research this atm, but I'm under the impression the Virgin Islands/Guam are the same way. Hawaii and Alaska are, on a cultural level, the same as the rest of the United States.

Re : Puerto Rico. I wasn't referring to how it's treated now, jsut how it was acquired. And I'll grant you your impression of the VI/Guam/Hawaii. The point is that they were acquired imperialistically, which you don't seem to dispute.

Yes, the US was imperialist in the early 20th century, but saying we are still an imperialist country begs the question, wtf is your definition of imperialism? Do you consider Japan to be an imperialist nation for keeping control over Hokkaido

Not "my" definition, but the dictionary.com one "The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations"

If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly the stated "reasons" for the invasion of Iraq, isn't it?

I'm not familiar with the situation in Hokkaido, and I'm too lazy to look it up

Granted, it's completely irrelevent to the topic of conversation, but... why did 9/11 happen in New York and not in Bagdad?

I'll throw you a typical "Rumsfeld" answer for this "I don't know, why don't you ask them?"



Ok, I can't let that lay there like that. Of course, the WTC was a much more visible target than anything in Iraq. And of course, Bin Laden is demonstrably quite more insane than Saddam, so other than that, I don't know. Perhaps I was wrong on that point. Perhaps our troops in Saudi Arabia are more offensive to him than Saddam. It's anybody's guess. That still doesn't negate that fact that his letter called Saddam "infidel".

[cryptorad]

Originally posted by futuro

Um, sorry. We didn't declare war against Iraq. Last time I looked at the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall a war declaration from Congress for either war.

You missed it.

The Declaration of War process was effectively replaced by the War Powers Act. But the SPECIFIC information you seek may be found HERE:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/

War Powers Act:
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

In either case Congress voted to support both the UN resolution and the use of the military to do it on January 12th, 1991. Specifically for the resolution of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. There was never a call for the Congressional Declaration of War process because it was not needed. I think you should stop calling our due process 'illegal' if you simply don't understand how it works.

Here's a couple of interesting statements you should read. ONE is a war declaration that SHOULD matter to you. If you are a US citizen that is. The second one is just, yet again, more evidence why Saddam is a threat to the US. Boring stuff for you.. I'm sure;

http://www.islamic-news.co.uk/declaration.htm

http://fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910112-terror.htm

[futuro]

Originally posted by Borscht
This link illustrates far more than mere words the true character and caliber of the so-called "anti war" protestors. This is the recent rally in San Francisco.

You will need Quicktime and a high-speed connection to view this video.

http://www.brain-terminal.com/video/...cktime-hq.html

Fun to watch Futuro's fellow travellers in action

Saddam's "useful idiots".

You paint with a broad brush, don't you? Considering that I'm on the other coast, and you're picking out the one demonstartion that turned violent, out of the many demonstrations that were quite peaceful, I'm assuming that it's ok to lump you in with the far-right militia organizations who support the overthrow of the US government, right? Is your hero Timothy McVeigh? Or perhaps you want to be associated with the arbortion clinic bombers, or the people who want the US to take over the entire world?

Oh, maybe you don't like that, huh?

[futuro]

Originally posted by cryptorad


Text of Pennsylvania's 1780 Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery
Following is the full text of the act which doomed slavery in Pennsylvania. Enacted on March 1st, 1780, with a vote of 34 to 21, this law was partially the work of William Brown, a Pennsylvania legislator from Lancaster County.

Link is here: http://www.afrolumens.org/slavery/gradual.html

Well.. you were close. What's 80 years among friends.

Sure, what's the USA law versus one state's (or a couple, I'm aware that a few northern states had outlawed slavery prior to the civil war) laws among friends.

However, my point was that until the Emancipation Proclaimation(1863), slavery was legal in the US. And also, what you posted doesn't negate my point that the CSA fired the first shot, does it?

[hhh]

>>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hhh


Your right. He hasn't attacked the US, not directly, at least, and we aren't going to give him a chance to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



OK, so let's not give North Korea a chance to
<<<<

There is probably sufficent reason to hypothesize they will be attended to next if they continue to act up. What a smart idea to have a "military first" attiude while your country's people starve, then try to blame the US because we cut of humanitarian aid.


>Otherwise, you could invent a threat against the US from Iceland and all I'd have to do is ask you for some kind of evidence to support your invented threat.<

A small island who has no miltary (whose actual armed forces are the IDF, which is backed by the US) is no threat compared to the 4th/5th/whatever most powerful nation Iraq was before the bombs started dropping.

I know, I know, bad example but point is the same right?

This man has killed own people. He killed Kuwaitis. He killed Israeli's. Would he attack the US and kill Americans? Is there any reason to think he wouldn't?

>Hmm, you're telling me on one hand that the internet isn't the be-all and end all of everthing,<

Your correct, I did.

> yet you then cite an internet source...<

Again, your correct, I did. 2 for 2.

I also said that site was an EXAMPLE of how things were, and to talk to vets who WERE THERE for an understanding of what really went on (that you can't get a full understanding of off the Internet).

You selectively ignored this.

>But the funny thing is, the one dictator that's sitting on the world's second largest oil reserve is the one we picked to "liberate". Curiuos, isn't it?<

Its not curious at all.

I never suggested that our government isn't corrupt.

You know whats funny? When the government is trying to pass laws about companies accounting policies and such so that we dont have more Worldcom's and Enron's, when the government itself has all sorts of "cooking the books" problems.

Nothing is black & white. I don't love my gf JUST because of her amazing personality. We ALL have alterier motives/agendas. For the US, oil(money) is very likely one of them.

Why do you suppose France and Russia are SO against this thing anyway? They have a lot of financial interests already tied up in Iraq, and us going there hurts their interests. Oh well, the world is going to hate the US whether we DO or DON'T do anything about situations such as this, so why not also try to make something positive out of it for us too?

We do have plenty of untapped oil reserves in the US too. But as long as we can use theirs, we will have ours for a rainy day. This planning is very sound. (And yes I'm aware that a recent plan to drill into more of Alaska's oil was shot down by the wildlife people. Given an economic crisis, I think the result would be different).

[Borscht]

You paint with a broad brush, don't you? Considering that I'm on the other coast, and you're picking out the one demonstartion that turned violent, out of the many demonstrations that were quite peaceful

Neither that video nor anything I've ever said spoke to violence at these demonstrations. I didn't even know there was any violence.

Yet you redirect the obvious, i.e. that the "anti war" demonstration has nothing to do with war and everything to do with hateful anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-capitalist sentiment. And that everyone involved is an utter moron and in no way represent the mainstream of *any* culture in existence. Well, France perhaps.

Somehow I suspect you didn't even bother to view the video. As it's hard to comprehend how anyone, even you, could have totally missed the obvious.

Here is a video of the New York protest, the similarities should be obvious to everyone but Futuro. And nobody should notice any violence, except for maybe Futuro.

http://www.brain-terminal.com/video/...cktime-hq.html

Futuro, you have demonstrated the totality of your brand of utter vacuousness. You have ceased being amusing. You've dodged every shred of substance in my many posts directed at you, and chosen to jump off into some obscure area that I didn't even allude to.

All of your hasty replies are filled with the sophomoric silliness that is your trademark. Again you demonstrate how impervious to reason and truth that you are, and how you simply dance away from every objective fact.

As I've said before, I don't argue with fools and I don't throw pearls before swine. Welcome to that nice, quiet place where Jeeves lives! You have no power here, be off with you.

We didn't declare war against Iraq.

ROFLMAO! This loser would argue that the sky is *not* blue, simply because it happened to be a cloudy day.

[Borscht]

For the US, oil(money) is very likely one of them.

I agree with your general precepts, however I would respectfully caution about accepting or conceding the premises of your opponent on these matters.

That you have desires for your girlfriend that are not all selfless, does not make them ulterior. "Purely selfish" is not generally virtuous, but there is a clear distinction between that term and what you are speaking to.

Anyone who claims that America's goals in the Kuwait conflict, or the current Iraqi conflict, are oil money is demonstrating their complete ignorance of reality.

During the Kuwait conflict, oil prices dropped precipitously to a low of $17.00 a barrel for crude. Anyone invested in oil in those days took a major bath.

Crude prices are dropping like a rock even now, and began their drop in the hours just before the war. The economic forces that cause this are identical, and there will be many deflated stock portfolios as things continue. This is a boon to the oil consumer, but a total kick in the shorts for the oil distributor or investor.

We seek to preserve the Iraqi oil fields to conserve those resources for their rightful owners, the Iraqi people.

America has a long tradition of good stewardship and selfless sacrifice for the free world. We have asked for nothing from those countries we have saved or liberated, except enough ground to bury our dead. Only the pathetic leftists talk about "costs" where liberty is concerned.

As a people, we are the most generous by any measure you care to devise. Do not let the aberational phenomena of the Clinton administration, or the current decrepit wantoness of the Democrat party lead you into believing that all our government is corrupt.

The nuances of difference between the opposing sides are not subtle, but rather easily discernable.

[homer]

If people would actually read all the resolutions that have been passed since 1991, they all give authorization in attacking Iraq if the points in it are not met. Time and time again Saddam has decieved, lied, and bullshitted his way out o fconflict. He even went as far to say he had no scud missles anymore.

Well, if that was true, where the hell are the scuds coming from now that he is firing?

The Resolutions, even teh most recent one passed last year, gives us the authority to do what we are doing. Why do you think the U.N. Sec General has not condemned or condoned what we are doing? All he has said is he hopes for a quick and decisive end to the conflict so humanitarian aid can be started.

If the resolutions had not authorized it, the U.N. would have already brougth charges against the U.S. and the other 39 countries of the coalition to the world court.

Please have your facts.

[hhh]

Originally posted by Borscht

Crude prices are dropping like a rock even now, and began their drop in the hours just before the war. The economic forces that cause this are identical, and there will be many deflated stock portfolios as things continue. This is a boon to the oil consumer, but a total kick in the shorts for the oil distributor or investor.

Crude started dropping when Bush made his 48 hour speech, as then the "uncertainty" went away. The market hates uncertainty.

The whole time oil was approaching $40 a barrel in the previous months, oil stocks were not doing at all well, basically holding true that whatever situation was going to be tempoary and short.

I think oil closed at 26.91 in NY on Friday, but I only do stocks and some options so I don't know for sure. However, what I'm trying to point out here is the "relative" price of oil hasn't changed, atleast not yet it hasn't. The amount in % oil has come down, is almost directly proportional to the % the US $ has strengthened against the euro/yen/et al. recently.

Hidden ajenda? Maybe. It all remains to be seen. I know the report I read about a southern village welcoming the Americans and them saying "we are happy to rid outselves of Saddam" makes it all more refreshing.

[futuro]

Originally posted by cryptorad



You missed it.

The Declaration of War process was effectively replaced by the War Powers Act. But the SPECIFIC information you seek may be found HERE:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/

War Powers Act:
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

In either case Congress voted to support both the UN resolution and the use of the military to do it on January 12th, 1991. Specifically for the resolution of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. There was never a call for the Congressional Declaration of War process because it was not needed. I think you should stop calling our due process 'illegal' if you simply don't understand how it works.

Here's a couple of interesting statements you should read. ONE is a war declaration that SHOULD matter to you. If you are a US citizen that is. The second one is just, yet again, more evidence why Saddam is a threat to the US. Boring stuff for you.. I'm sure;

http://www.islamic-news.co.uk/declaration.htm

http://fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910112-terror.htm

OK, so you showed me some things I already knew about. The stuff about Congress shirking it's responsibility isn't new to me. Those "laws" and "resolutions" are obviously unconstitiutional, as any clear reading of the Constitution indicates. By giving up their responsibility, Congress has allocated more power to the Executive than the framers intended. Some strange comments in the laws and resolutions claiming that things move so fast these days that Congress can't possibly get together in time to declare war is totally idiotic. This whole concept has yet to be tested in the courts. I'm been amazed that some simple law passed by one Congress has the power to override the Constitution.

Also, a "declaration of war" by an individual, is kind of ridiculous for the US to take seriously, don't you think?

But then again, even if you take it seriously, Bin Laden isn't Hussein, is he? So what was your point in posting that, except to confuse the issue?

[futuro]

Originally posted by hhh
>>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hhh


Your right. He hasn't attacked the US, not directly, at least, and we aren't going to give him a chance to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



OK, so let's not give North Korea a chance to
<<<<

There is probably sufficent reason to hypothesize they will be attended to next if they continue to act up.

"Continue to act up"??? What are you, their parents? It's funny that everybody here seems to think it fine for the US to have the weapons that we deem necessary for our defense, but other countries can't do the same. And here's a news flash for you : the US is just one of 170+ countries in the world. We're not anybody's keepers, and we're not anybody's parents. Being the most powerful nation in the world doesn't give us the right to dicate to the rest of the world how they should act.

What a smart idea to have a "military first" attiude while your country's people starve, then try to blame the US because we cut of humanitarian aid.

You're absolutely right. The US has starving people, and instead of ensuring that each US citizen has food and shelter, we're spending billions on invading a country that hasn't attacked us.

Why do you think that other countries should take care of their less fortunate citizens when we don't? Why do you condemn Iraq and North Korea for spending money on their militaries at the expense of their poor, starving citizens when we're doing the exact same thing?

I'm disqusted at the inconsistency.

A small island who has no miltary (whose actual armed forces are the IDF, which is backed by the US) is no threat compared to the 4th/5th/whatever most powerful nation Iraq was before the bombs started dropping.

I know, I know, bad example but point is the same right?

Boy, pick out Iceland from my elisped list of countries. Those [...] means that I didn't feel like typing in all the countries in the world.

Talk about selective quoting....

Anyway, you failed to address the point. Bush's new foreign policy seems to be that if you don't do what the US says, you're toast. How do you tink that plays to the citizens of the world?

Doesn't that make us look like the world's biggest bullies?

This man has killed own people.

You're right. He presided over the deaths of almost 150 during his term as Governor of Texas...

Oops, you were talking about Hussein, weren't you? You must mean the Kurds, who allied with the country that attacked his (Iran).

He killed Kuwaitis. He killed Israeli's. Would he attack the US and kill Americans? Is there any reason to think he wouldn't?

What reason do you think he would be stupid enough to? Sure, he killed Iraelis, when their ally was drinving his forces out of Kuwait. And sure, he killed Kuwaitis, but isn't Bush killing Iraqis? Why is one ok, and the other is bad?

>Hmm, you're telling me on one hand that the internet isn't the be-all and end all of everthing,<

Your correct, I did.

> yet you then cite an internet source...<

Again, your correct, I did. 2 for 2.

I also said that site was an EXAMPLE of how things were, and to talk to vets who WERE THERE for an understanding of what really went on (that you can't get a full understanding of off the Internet).

I've talked to a few. And sure, the things he did to people that opposed him are terrible. But no more terrible than bombing a city of 5 million. Why do you think one is good and the other bad? Why aren't both bad? And don't give me the line about the US "liberating" the Iraqi people. Killing them isn't "liberating" them, it's killing them.

You selectively ignored this.

No, you selectively posted source that you claim is "true". I could post a source that shows how a Kuwaiti women lied about Iraqi atrocities, because she left before the invasion. Yet her story was circulated widely, to justify the first Gulf War.

>But the funny thing is, the one dictator that's sitting on the world's second largest oil reserve is the one we picked to "liberate". Curiuos, isn't it?<

Its not curious at all.

I'm glad you admit that.

I never suggested that our government isn't corrupt.

So how do you know that the stories they tell you aren't designed to inflame your emotions into supporting an attack on the world's second largest oil reserves?

You know whats funny? When the government is trying to pass laws about companies accounting policies and such so that we dont have more Worldcom's and Enron's, when the government itself has all sorts of "cooking the books" problems.

I agree wholeheartedly. And even funnier is the idea that record deficits (even with the shady accounting) are supposed to be cured by reducing revenue.

Nothing is black & white. I don't love my gf JUST because of her amazing personality.

The nice body helps, I'm sure, right? And your desire to rip her jeans off and .... helps too. But on the other hand, I'm sure she's quite aware of you motives, and might have a few of her own (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). That ain't the same thing as starting a war for personal monetary gain and embelishing "facts" to sucker people along, is it? After all, in one case, you or she might get a broken heart (cured easily by a smile and wink from another girl, I can testify to that!), in the other case, people die.

We ALL have alterier motives/agendas. For the US, oil(money) is very likely one of them.

What's the price of oil? Does it compare to the price of a mother's tears?

Why do you suppose France and Russia are SO against this thing anyway? They have a lot of financial interests already tied up in Iraq, and us going there hurts their interests.

And if Saddam is such a terrible guy, and wants to screw everybody anyway possible, why is he trading with France and Russia in such a way that they would want to continue?

Oh well, the world is going to hate the US whether we DO or DON'T do anything about situations such as this, so why not also try to make something positive out of it for us too?

Don't be so falatistic. If the US was soley in the business of helping people (not governments), then perhaps the world might at least tolerate us. Waging war against a weak country isn't positive, and it's not going to help to world's wiew of us.

We do have plenty of untapped oil reserves in the US too.

Not nearly enough that's accessible for reasonable costs.

But as long as we can use theirs, we will have ours for a rainy day. This planning is very sound.

I agree, but on the condition that we pay for it, not take it by force.

(And yes I'm aware that a recent plan to drill into more of Alaska's oil was shot down by the wildlife people. Given an economic crisis, I think the result would be different).

"The wildlife people" must include 54 US Senators. At least they understood the long term value of unspoiled wilderness was worth more than 6 months of oil.

[TDES]

George Bush - Used political connection and office to improve his personal wealth. Arguably made poor decisions regarding economic policy. Probably not the most environmentally concerned president we've seen.

Saddam - Tortured children in front of their parents for the purpose of instilling fear in his domain.

I'm sorry ... as I watch the news tonight knowing my sister and all the other soldiers are very much in harms way ... I'm able to discern the purpose. As respectful I've been to everyone’s opinion (and still am where it pertains to decent over war) ... I'm feeling the need to give a big F-Y to those that are not fully supporting our people that have the balls (ovaries) to get the job done.

As a country, we may not be loved for out policies, but I still maintain that we have done far more good for this planet than bad in our 200+ years. Show me a country that has done more for the world (despite our faults) and I'll conceed.

We've proven that there is nothing we cannot accomplish as a united country. USA is still the #1 place that people flock to in effort to seek a better life and a chance to prosper.

If we all don't remember what brought us the prosperity that we all enjoy and most of us take completely for granted, we'll end up as footnotes in the history books.

Descent and differing opinions are what made us unique, but not rallying behind our brothers and sisters in times of need, whether or not we agree with the cause will be our demise.

Futuro, if you don't like George, I support your opinion, but save the campaigning for 2004.

Right now, I'm much happier having Donnie and John making decisions than Madeline Half-bright and that broad that held a MP5 to Elian head..

BTW .... you enjoy these forums (and I enjoy your debates) .. where's your contribution ? <wink>

noticed this a while after I posted ......

Americans are inhumane

Yeah ... we're the assholes .... where are your liberal crocodile tears about this .... huh ?

[Borscht]

where's your contribution

Every word I post here is priceless, and contributes to the popularity of the board. Heh heh heh.

Should ShowEQ remain functional for a duration of greater than three months, or be repaired in a period of less than one week when it fails, I might actually contribute cash.

Reading that some have a functioning version, yet no update has been posted, doesn't inspire me to contribute my hard earned dollars.

[Borscht]

Used political connection and office to improve his personal wealth. Arguably made poor decisions regarding economic policy. Probably not the most environmentally concerned president we've seen.

Be cautious not to accept the premises of liberals when you debate them. They are always flawed or empty rhetoric, for the foundation of liberalism is utopian fantasy and emotion...not reason and intellect.

I do not believe there has been any substantiated instance of Bush using political connections to improve his personal wealth. Considering the gutter-level criticism coming from Daschle, I imagine even the wildest speculation of any sort of dealing would be national news by now.

Bush's economic policy is no different than that of John F. Kennedy. Which was the very economic policy that Ronald Reagan adopted. I see no errors in Bush's economic policy, with the exception that it is being implemented much too slowly to have the effect that JFK's and Reagan's did.

Since virtually none of Bush's ten-year economic plan has actually kicked in yet, it's a bit premature to analyze the quality of his decisions.

Environmental "concern" has approached the level of radicalism. Banning sensible and necessary harvesting of national forests has led to the plague of recent wildfires with huge property losses to homes bordering the forestlands. Onerous restrictions on energy development have led to the rolling blackouts in California.

And I sincerely hope that once international terrorism is dealt with, we turn our attentions to our domestic terrorists operating under the guise of "environmental concern". Earth First, etc.

It seems innapropriate to me to apply liberal "standards" of how things should be done to a Conservative administration. Liberal "standards" are merely policy opinions. Bush applies the policy opinions of Conservatism as his standard, so one would not expect him to use Keynesian economics or radical zero-growth policies as regards the environment.

He should be judged on objective results, and it is much too early to measure those. His rejection of liberal hysteria on matters economic and environmental are to be expected.

The liberals lost, both in 2000 and again in 2002...devastatingly. Now that they have ludicrously positioned themselves so that the only way they can gain political advantage is if terrible things happen to the economy or in the Iraqi conflict, I suspect their demise will continue to accelerate.

It's time for them to get over it, and quit acting like their failed policies are some manner of objective standards.

[Gnutter]

I sure wouldn't want to be a British soldier in Iraq right now. There's a very real chance of being killed by the Americans