Should war pass the global test?

[FMJeff]

Kerry mentioned in the debate that war should pass a global test. I feel it was one of the smartest observations about war I've heard thus far from both candidates. This administration feels very strongly that we should do whatever is necessary to protect this country, even going to war without provocation. I find it kind of ironic that even in this age of globalization and technology (internet) that we (americans) still seem to forget that we are part of a global community, an interconnected network of people who affect one another every day through our actions. Who are we to police the world, to wage war on whomever we want? This country has a history of fighting the good fight with the support of other nations who feel bound by basic human morality to defend the world against evil. Every war we've taken upon ourselves to fight for our own political reasons has resulted in worldwide scorn and stateside protest. Vietnam. Gulf War, and now Iraq...all were met with stark criticism. Sure, we can dismiss France and all the naysayers as enemies of freedom, as pussies...but you have to wonder why they feel the way they do. Is it because, maybe, this war isn't right? Do you feel this country should consider the opinoins of others before going to war?

In the end, doesn't a worldwide consensus mean we're doing the right thing? That we are, indeed, fighting the good fight? Who can deny us the right to protect ourselves when the evidence so clearly points to action?

[shamus mcfitzy]

I think Kerry saying this really just pointed out the differences in the American people. That's an issue that i expect to be supported by probably 45% of American people or so. But that really is something that I feel is essential to going to war. I consider myself, as corny and hippie-ish as it sounds, a member of the world's population before I consider myself an American. I understand people feel differently but it really is one of the solid issues in my mind.

[The Nature Boy]

We are responsible to ourselves first. Lets take the Iraqi example.

In late 2002/early 2003, there was ample reason to believe Iraq was at best harboring terrorists(proven later) and at worst stockpiling WMD(thus unproven). Information was based on global and our own intellegence, not to mention an independent UN inventory of Hussein's arsenal. The ultimatium of the first gulf war CEASE FIRE(not ceasation) was to destroy the weapons. Hussein, when pressed, could not or would not present evidence the weapons were destroyed or moved, so any logical conclusion would indicate that they are somehow sheltered in Iraq.

While we could have been complacent on such issues pre 9/11, it was a luxury not possible thereafter, at least in the eyes of Bush, for better or worse. Your opinion or mine doesn't matter, what matters is Congress authorized the use of force in the disarmorment of Hussein, but when brought to the global community, there were some active dissenters. Namely France, Germany and Russia. Now while they may have had the most noble of intentions in trying to perserve Iraqi sovernty, they also ALL enjoyed a substantial financial stake in the Iraqi "Oil-For-Food" status Quo. It was in their national and economic interest for nothing to change. We are supposed to take THESE countries seriously when determining what's best for our own country? Not in my USA, no way, no fucking day.

That's not to say there's never a time or place to involve or consult the world, especially if they can be above the fray and have no stake in a particular situation like the one in Iraq. But when countries are rather apparently voting based upon their own financial or security interests, I think we have earned the right as global peacekeepers to do the same and be the ultimate final judgement in determining our course of action.

In the final analysis, I think the global community should be a consideration in what we do, but by no means the deciding factor that Kerry/Edwards seems to favor.

Bon Jovi Fan Since Day ONE!

[Mike Teacher]

We arent globalized, we arent a global community. When those two occur, possibilities might open.

Right now the 'glaobal community' and that's the UN too, is utterly ignoring ongoing, systemitized geneocide, occurring now. This was the global community that watched a million slaughtered in 90 days in Rwanda a decade ago. A globe littered with bodies of children is not globalized. It is failed.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig">

[mdr55]

So....um....what does this have to do with global warming??? :quest:

[Yerdaddy]

I think before we make "global test" into a common term we should understand what Kerry meant by it. I don't think it was anything more than an off-hand way of saying Bush brought us into a pre-emptive war, with almost no international support, without considering the post-war situation, without a clear plan to achieve the post-war objectives, and by overstating the evidence that the pre-emptive war was based on. But the "global test" phrase, if it means anything it means that by disregarding world opinion and being wrong we're stuck with the consequences - alienation, lack of support for cleaning the mess, loss of credibility, lack of authority and prestige, loss of diplomatic (not to mention military) leverage in dealing with North Korea and Iran, etc. It clearly doesn't mean we should only go to war if the majority of countries supports it, because that's exactly what Kerry was saying when he used the term.

Basically, I don't think you can make the term into a yes/no question based on how Kerry used it. I think when he said "failed the global test" he was just saying "fucked up."

Anyway, here's the exact question and answer transcript. Maybe it's perfectly clear what it means and I'm nuts.


LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.

Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet. But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.

You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.

You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[mdr55]

So Kerry is willing to give other countries veto power of wether the U.S. should protect itself or not? President Bush will not give any veto powers to any other country when it comes to protecting America.


Even if it's in text, people wanna see want they want to see. And that's what pisses me off about the debates. Kerry or Bush--what's the difference?? Who ever becomes President has a big mess on there hands. God bless America.

[TooCute]

So Kerry is willing to give other countries veto power of wether the U.S. should protect itself or not?

I was about to make sure that this was a joke, but then I stopped and thought about it. There really are people out there, I suppose, who believe the Republican spin on what Kerry said, even after he explicitly said that he would never give veto power to any other country. Even in the same phrase as the "global test" sentence he said "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. "

As I understood it, what he said about a global test (and mind he even says "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." - did being in past tense) is, well, exactly what he said. If and when you do have to use pre-emptive force to protect the US, you'd best do it with a good reason - one that both US citizens ("your countrymen, your people") and the rest of the globe ("the world) will understand.

The alternative to that is of course that you use preemptive force against a country and you can't provide a good reason for that. What does that say about the US to the rest of the world, nevermind its own people? It's all well and good to have a rah rah USA, we're the best, we don't need anyone attitude, but realistically the world simply doesn't work that way.

I think Edwards did a fair job explaining the global test statement in the debates, but it may only be because it simply reiterated what I felt that Kerry had said in the first place. To someone who misunderstood the comment in the first place (so completely as to have to ask if Kerry was willing to give veto power to another country before protecting the US - to believe that anyone would suggest that we need the world's permission before defending ourselves in the best way we see fit), I can see how perhaps it did not clarify the issue. I think it also suffered somewhat perhaps because Edwards tacked on a statement that is at best spinning the facts for his own purposes - I think Kerry quoted the figure too, but it was the "You know, we've taken 90 percent of the coalition causalities. American taxpayers have borne 90 percent of the costs of the effort in Iraq." statement.

The best I can suggest is to go back and read the transcripts of the two debates in their full contexts and consider what is actually being said and what is spin.

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[mdr55]

The best I can suggest is to go back and read the transcripts of the two debates in their full contexts and consider what is actually being said and what is spin.


That's the whole point........people are going to SEE what they want to SEE. Who in their right mind actually checks back to examine transcripts to see what was actually said? Not the average joe. And even if it's print there's always "it was taken out of context" and "I didn't mean it like that". It all comes down to what the peoples' preconcieved notions of the candidates were. If I believe that Bush is a scumbag, then that's how I see him. If I believe that Kerry is a scumbag, the same thing. They can say all they want and I'll be Listening to stuff that I want to hear to backup my position of how I feel about the candidates. Like eye-witness testimony......we both can see the same thing but interpret them differently. And for the people that are undecided that's alot of bullcrap. They already know who they are going to vote for but need re-assurance to vote a certain way. The only people that are really undecided are the people that don't care about the election and they don't vote anyway.

[FollowThisLogic]

Wow, you guys are sure writing really long posts to explain ONE of your candidate's positions.

If it takes that long to explain where he stands, there's no way the majority of the people will buy it.

<center><img src="http://www.followthislogic.com/stuff/rf-screw.jpg" alt="Just say 'Screw all ya'll.' It'll work. Trust me.">
I <font face="webdings" color=red size="+1">Y</font> my Special Spiteful Title!
Sure, reply to a post with just a picture. You fuckers killed teh funney long ago.</center>

[TooCute]

Wow, you guys are sure writing really long posts to explain ONE of your candidate's positions.

If it takes that long to explain where he stands, there's no way the majority of the people will buy it.


It wouldn't really take so long if people actually listened in the first place as opposed to listening to the out of context quotes and spin by various conservative pundits & the Bush administration.

It happens often enough in the opposite way, too. This one just seemed particularly dumb to me. It's all retarded bullshit spin, but the least you can do is actually listen to what's said and make up your own opinion - in this case I only speak up because I can't really fathom how anyone could have heard those words and took it to mean that Kerry thinks we need to get a permission slip from the rest of the world before defending ourselves in whatever manner necessary.

Although I guess then there are the comments you don't really have to spin; they're just ridiculous in and of themselves, like that Bush OB-GYN quote. But by and large everything is just spin spin spin. Someone should do a parody of that Byrds song.


<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute3.gif">

[mdr55]

like that Bush OB-GYN quote.


Cheney brought up an OB-GYN reference too. So do him and Bush visit the same doctor??

This message was edited by mdr55 on 10-6-04 @ 7:33 AM

[TheMojoPin]

If it takes that long to explain where he stands, there's no way the majority of the people will buy it.

Yeah!

Dumb it the fuck down like the other guy!

And the spin on the "global test" statement is disgusting. Even Jeff got it wrong. Kerry clearly wasn't saying that there should be some kind of "physical" test that American foreign actions must be approved by. He was saying that global standards are something we should take into account more seriously, and think how our actions around the globe, like Iraq, will effect our standing in the long run. It's just common sense.

And nobody HAS to "scour the transcripts" to get that...THEY JUST HAD TO FUCKING LISTEN. The only reason you're getting these long diatribes here is because you had Republican spin monkeys on half a dozen different political talk shows trageting the phrase "world test" specifically and blasting its actual meaning all to hell.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[canofsoup15]

The only reason you're getting these long diatribes here is because you had Republican spin monkeys on half a dozen different political talk shows trageting the phrase "world test" specifically and blasting its actual meaning all to hell.


You saw the Daily Show last night too?

<img src=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/ERUZIES1.gif>

<marquee behavior=alternate><Font size="1" Color="blue">
I got the glass, I got the steel. I got the love to hate.
</font><font color=red> All I need is your head on stake.</font></marquee><Font Color = White>

[silera]

Wow, you guys are sure writing really long posts to explain ONE of your candidate's positions.

If it takes that long to explain where he stands, there's no way the majority of the people will buy it.


Test Good.

War Bad.



<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[TheMojoPin]

The only reason you're getting these long diatribes here is because you had Republican spin monkeys on half a dozen different political talk shows trageting the phrase "world test" specifically and blasting its actual meaning all to hell.


You saw the Daily Show last night too?

Yup. And they missed at least three others, since they tape their show by about 5 PM. So that's, what, 7? 8?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[canofsoup15]

Yup. And they missed at least three others, since they tape their show by about 5 PM. So that's, what, 7? 8?


I thought they were live last night, but I guess that's why they didn't cover the vice-presidential thing.

And yeah it's taped at 5.

As for a global test (so we don't derail this shit completely), how can you have other countries deciding what's right for the world when they have corruption and problems in their own country that they don't feel like cleaning up. First you sort your OWN shit out, then you tell the others what they should do.

<img src=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/ERUZIES1.gif>

<marquee behavior=alternate><Font size="1" Color="blue">
I got the glass, I got the steel. I got the love to hate.
</font><font color=red> All I need is your head on stake.</font></marquee><Font Color = White>

This message was edited by canofsoup15 on 10-6-04 @ 12:28 PM

[TheMojoPin]

It's not about someone else deciding things FOR us. It's considering how our major international actions will effect our global standing in the long run, and not totally dismissing that just because we can.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[canofsoup15]

Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention at the start of the war, but I didn't see any countries really coming out and saying "hey maybe they DON'T have this stuff" at least not loud enough for me to hear. I felt that the general consensus back then was that everyone sort've half-heartingly agreed that Saddam PROBABLY had weapons.

<img src=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/ERUZIES1.gif>

<marquee behavior=alternate><Font size="1" Color="blue">
I got the glass, I got the steel. I got the love to hate.
</font><font color=red> All I need is your head on stake.</font></marquee><Font Color = White>

[silera]

Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention at the start of the war, but I didn't see any countries really coming out and saying "hey maybe they DON'T have this stuff" at least not loud enough for me to hear.


Wouldn't the UN voting against the US indicate that most of the world was against it?

Anti-war protests sweep the world (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/19/sproject.irq.protests/index.html)



<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[canofsoup15]

Damn, how could I forget the U.N. Fuck Me.

But I do not think that the administration flat out lied because I think very few people knew whether or not Saddam actually had weapons, and they were probably in Iraq. I think that while the protesters didn't want to go to war it was because they A. Didn't want any war B. Didn't think we had enough evidence. Practically NOONE knew if he did have weapons or not, but a hell of alot of people expected it, possibly even people in the U.N. But because we didn't prove that he had them, and we were working with the premise that it was a "known suspicion" that he did, we were fucked.

<img src=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/ERUZIES1.gif>

<marquee behavior=alternate><Font size="1" Color="blue">
I got the glass, I got the steel. I got the love to hate.
</font><font color=red> All I need is your head on stake.</font></marquee><Font Color = White>

[NewYorkDragons80]

When Israel attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, EVERY country in the world condemned it. Is there anyone here who would like to stick up for a nuclear Iraq?

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[JPMNICK]

Should war pass the global test?


if not, it should at least pass an IQ test

http://home.comcast.net/~nickcontardo/a_schilling_ft1.jpg
Thanks to Monsterone for my first sig.

[silera]

When Israel attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, EVERY country in the world condemned it. Is there anyone here who would like to stick up for a nuclear Iraq?


All or nothing is a limited and ill thought out approach to foreign policy.

If America becomes the boy who cried wolf, what position will we be in when we do in fact see a wolf?


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[mdr55]

When Israel attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, EVERY country in the world condemned it. Is there anyone here who would like to stick up for a nuclear Iraq?


So the U.S. can have Nuclear weapons but when other countries try to develop them........who are we to tell them not to?? How many actual countries have actually used Nuclear weapons???


And for that stupid anti-missile shield thing that we're spending so much money on.......last time I looked we were attacked by our own freaking Airplanes. What good is this defense system if we're not fighting an enemy of old like Russia, Iran, or Iraq??

[curtoid]

So Kerry is willing to give other countries veto power of wether the U.S. should protect itself or not?

No - he has never said that.

If we were attacked, like on 9/11, of course he would feel free to strike back without waiting to get the pulse of the world.

President Bush will not give any veto powers to any other country when it comes to protecting America.

How did Bush "protect" us by going into a country that had never attacked us - killing about 14,000 civilians - creating an unstable atmosphere perfect for the terrorists that did attack us - a country that had no weapons of mass destruction - had been kept at bay for over 10 years and couldn't even fly in their own air space - and (we learn today) WAS NOT EVEN IN PURSUIT OF WEAPONS (!!!) (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_13) - and has he protected us by making gathering intellegence nearly impossible in that part of the world by not planning for the peace?????

Yes Kerry (along with the 99 other senators and 400 + members of the house) gave the President the keys to drive the bus; he did not tell him to drive it off a fucking cliff.





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/40.jpg
"One of our normal friends." - RB

This message was edited by curtoid on 10-6-04 @ 2:52 PM

[curtoid]

Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention at the start of the war, but I didn't see any countries really coming out and saying "hey maybe they DON'T have this stuff" at least not loud enough for me to hear. I felt that the general consensus back then was that everyone sort've half-heartingly agreed that Saddam PROBABLY had weapons.

Millions of people across the world, including a half million each in NY, DC and California, all said so BEFORE the war started.

If you didn't hear about it - blame the media.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/40.jpg
"One of our normal friends." - RB

[mdr55]

So Kerry is willing to give other countries veto power of wether the U.S. should protect itself or not?
No - he has never said that.

Were you watching the same debate.


How did Bush "protect" us by going into a country that had never attacked us - killing about 14,000 civilians - creating an unstable atmosphere perfect for the terrorists that did attack us - a country that had no weapons of mass destruction - had been kept at bay for over 10 years and couldn't even fly in their own air space - and (we learn today) WAS NOT EVEN IN PURSUIT OF WEAPONS (!!!) (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_13) - and has he protected us by making gathering intellegence nearly impossible in that part of the world by not planning for the peace?????

So we would be better off with Saddam in power?? Even Kerry said he was a threat.


Go Bush Go!!!!

[JerryTaker]

Here's an example of a "Global Test" (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html)



We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;


<br><B>
[The Patriot Act has decreed this sig indecent, and has put JerryTaker under suspicion]</B>

[wilee]

Would Clinton's war on Kosovo, which was not U.N. approved and a declaration of war was rejected by th U.S. Congress pass this global test?

<IMG SRC="http://cwjr.home.infionline.net/sigpic.gif">
The sun in your eyes made some of the lies worth believing

[FMJeff]

So we would be better off with Saddam in power?? Even Kerry said he was a threat.


IT IS NOT OUR PLACE TO REMOVE DICTATORS FROM POWER UNLESS THEY THREATEN US DIRECTLY!

If that's the case, why not Iran? Saudi Arabia? Why Iraq? Why not North Korea?

Saddam was not a key player in this war against terror. This has been stated a hundred times over.

Are we better off with Saddam out of power? NO. We are in a moral and financial quagmire, our military stretched far beyond its capabilities, civilian and combatant casualties piling up...

We could've dealt with Saddam LATER. It wasn't a priority issue. Sure the guy is just plain no good for anybody, but he was NOT a threat. There are countries all over the world HARBORING terrorists. Harboring is not a crime punishable by invasion. I'm sorry. It's just not.

Yes, he is a THREAT. But he wasn't a THREAT to us AT THIS PRESENT MOMENT IN TIME. Even the Gulf War as defensable...he INVADED Kuwait...an ally...even if that war was fought for oil defense, he still commited an act of war against an ally, and thus us.

What about Yassar Arafat killing US foreign officials TWICE and admitting to it TWICE, evidence of which captured on tape TWICE. How's THAT for an act of war???????

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/fmjeff.gif">
<br>
It made my heart sing.

[mdr55]

IT IS NOT OUR PLACE TO REMOVE DICTATORS FROM POWER UNLESS THEY THREATEN US DIRECTLY!


So if someone threatened your dad.......you do nothing???

Besides, Saddam had the POTENTIAL to be a threat. Better to take him out now than later. Besides we didn't want Saddam to use the WMD that we gave him when Iraq was fighting Iran. How you think the US knew Saddam had WMDs?

[TheMojoPin]

No president has ever given control of our foreign policy and military actions/forces over a power other than the US government, and it's not going to start with Kerry. Quit being idiots. Unless he's desperate for political suicide, he's not going to do something THAT stupid.

Secondly, COS, the general global anti-war consensus, outside of the "NO WAR EVER" minority, was more a question of "why now? Why so fast?" when it came to invading Iraq. Nobody knew for sure Iraq didn't have WMD's, that's very true...but nobody knew for sure that he did, either. Overall, the idea was let's explore other options...but we didn't. And in the mind of the "hawks," "all options" are do nothing, sanctions or war...and that's it.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[curtoid]

Wasn't it Bush who said in 2000 that he wasn't going to get into the business of Nation Building?

((sigh))

Classic flip flopper.

Besides, Saddam had the POTENTIAL to be a threat.

No he wasn't. He was completely defanged and posed no threat to anyone except his own people - which would be reason enough to bring him down, IF THAT WAS ONE OF THE TWO REASONS GIVEN FOR DOING SO!

So we would be better off with Saddam in power??

Are we? No. In fact, the way we went about bringing him down has put us in far worse shape. It has distracted us from the real war on terror. There are greater evils out there than so crazy old bastard we had under control, who had the misfortunate to be sitting on top of the oil for our SUVs.

Are they? For the majority, no. Saddam, for all of his evil, actually made sure there was food and clothing and electricity during the sanctions. Medicine he couldn't get, and as a result 500,000 people, mostly children, died over the course of the ten years. Unless things really improve, women in Iraq will actually have actually lost ground with Saddam's secular administration than if one of the fundamentalists ultimately take control, like in Iran.

As Pat Buchanan has said - they don't hate us for who we are, but what we have done.

Go Bush Go!!!!

Yes - you remember who started and perpetuated this cycle of war and violence as people you care about continue to get shipped off to fight this nightmare 20 years from now, because your President decided to take his holy war to the wrong place.

Thank God Bush wasn't President during WW2 or else we would have bombed Thailand after Pearl Harbor was attacked.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/40.jpg
"One of our normal friends." - RB

[Yerdaddy]

Would Clinton's war on Kosovo, which was not U.N. approved and a declaration of war was rejected by th U.S. Congress pass this global test?
Yes. Clinton had broad international support and it was in fact a NATO-led coalition. The reason they didn't get UN Security Council authorization was because Russian President Boris Yeltsin felt he would appear weak before his public if he was seen to be acquiescing to a US/NATO operation in his back yard since NATO was created specifically to oppose the Soviet Union militarily. So the US and Russia kept open a backdoor diplomatic channel while gave secret approval and publicly maneuvered to appear to be restricting our operations. It wasn't ideal conditions for conducting a war, but it was an successful operation in terms of retaining and enhancing our international credibility and prestige, stemmed a massive campaign of killing and ethnic cleansing, cost us no lost soldiers, and demonstrated the height of post-Cold War international military cooperation.

Contrasted against the same categories of costs and benefits of the Iraq War and it passes the "global test" (whatever that means) with flying colors.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[SatCam]

Alls I need to know is will I need a #2 pencil?

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig89_general_snoopdog.jpg" align="right" alt="Nigguh pleeze" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

[canofsoup15]

you remember who started and perpetuated this cycle of war and violence


Mankind itself?

<img src=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/ERUZIES1.gif>

<marquee behavior=alternate><Font size="1" Color="blue">
I got the glass, I got the steel. I got the love to hate.
</font><font color=red> All I need is your head on stake.</font></marquee><Font Color = White>

[furie]

In the end, doesn't a worldwide consensus mean we're doing the right thing?


No.

The world went along with hitler while he forcibly annexed three countries, did the global consent make it right? no.

the world went along with (and continues to do so) the genocide in rwanda. did the global consent make it right? no.

The world went along with the US while we slaughtered the indians. did the global consent make it right? no.

We shouldn't be the world's police, but we shouldn't judge our actions on the world community's opinions because the global community is often wrong, slow to change, and eager to avoid conflict, indifferent to wither it's right or wrong.

Millions have died when we take action and millions die when we don't. which actions were the right ones to take and the right ones to avoid?

That being said, I think the Iraq war was the wrong action to take. Not because other nations say so.


<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FG_squid.jpg">

<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

[wilee]

I see, and the fact that Congress (and Kerry) voted to approve Bush's request for a declaration of war against Iraq, but voted (overwhelmingly) against Clinton's request for a d.o.w against Kosovo means "Bush started an illegal war" but nobody seems to recall that Clinton did the same thing.

Milosovic made no agression against the United States, and a NATO commander issued orders to the U.S. Armed forces at Clinton's direction to take part in going after him on the claims that he had over 100,000 people killed. NATO forces only discovered about 3,000 bodies. Saddam also had a history of genocide and killing, but we shouldn't have gone in there to stop that? Yes, I know, the reason that we went in there was because "Bush said Saddam has WMDs, not because Saddam was killing people."

Just because "stopping genocide" is a more "warm and fuzzy" reason to send our troops into a foreign country, it still doesn't make it any more right than what Bush did with Congress's backing.

Presidents from both parties pull the same crap, and each side points out the failings of the other, while convienently forgetting that their side has done the same.

Kerry and Bush are no different. No matter which one we get in office, it will be politics as usual.

<IMG SRC="http://cwjr.home.infionline.net/sigpic.gif">
The sun in your eyes made some of the lies worth believing

[TheMojoPin]

Clinton, comparatively speaking, pulled that war off.

Bush blew this one to smithereens.

If we're really gonna compare the two, let's look at in that context, too.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Lumber]

Eeeeeeeeeeeveryone`s a critic....So was I when I was younger. So, who DID you vote for 4 yrs ago?

Now we all complain...

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=jtodd">

[Lumber]

I see, and the fact that Congress (and Kerry) voted to approve Bush's request for a declaration of war against Iraq, but voted (overwhelmingly) against Clinton's request for a d.o.w against Kosovo means "Bush started an illegal war" but nobody seems to recall that Clinton did the same thing.

Milosovic made no agression against the United States, and a NATO commander issued orders to the U.S. Armed forces at Clinton's direction to take part in going after him on the claims that he had over 100,000 people killed. NATO forces only discovered about 3,000 bodies. Saddam also had a history of genocide and killing, but we shouldn't have gone in there to stop that? Yes, I know, the reason that we went in there was because "Bush said Saddam has WMDs, not because Saddam was killing people."

Just because "stopping genocide" is a more "warm and fuzzy" reason to send our troops into a foreign country, it still doesn't make it any more right than what Bush did with Congress's backing.

Presidents from both parties pull the same crap, and each side points out the failings of the other, while convienently forgetting that their side has done the same.

Kerry and Bush are no different. No matter which one we get in office, it will be politics as usual.

<IMG SRC="http://cwjr.home.infionline.net/sigpic.gif">
The sun in your eyes made some of the lies worth believingVery well said...

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=jtodd">

[HBox]

I see, and the fact that Congress (and Kerry) voted to approve Bush's request for a declaration of war against Iraq, but voted (overwhelmingly) against Clinton's request for a d.o.w against Kosovo means "Bush started an illegal war" but nobody seems to recall that Clinton did the same thing.

Are you talking about authorizing the use of force or was there another later vote for a declaration of war? It's two different things.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[Yerdaddy]

I see, and the fact that Congress (and Kerry) voted to approve Bush's request for a declaration of war against Iraq, but voted (overwhelmingly) against Clinton's request for a d.o.w against Kosovo means "Bush started an illegal war" but nobody seems to recall that Clinton did the same thing.

"overwhelmingly" = Authorization passed the Senate and was a tie (fail by one vote) in the House. Then they appropriated double the funding request Clinton made. But the politics are complicated and I don't want to waste anymore time on the poor comparison.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[FMJeff]

So if someone threatened your dad.......you do nothing???


Something tells me mdr55 didn't make debate team captain at Stupid U. Let me begin by saying no, I wouldn't attack someone with the propensity to commit violence...either to my father or anyone else despite thier previous bad acts, unless I felt there was an iminent threat. Or maybe I would, but it would be driven by something intensely personal. The United States of America is not my father, and I am not the president. Your analogy is absurd.



Besides, Saddam had the POTENTIAL to be a threat. Better to take him out now than later.


Yeah that's good foreign policy. Do you honestly think Iraq was the highest-priority threat against this country? Should I list for you the countries with PROVEN and ACTIVE nuclear weapon programs within striking distance of our coastlines? We don't "take out" countries unless we ABSOLUTELY have to. You don't put american soldiers in harms way unless you ABSOLUTELY have to...after EVERY POSSIBLE AVENUE for peaceful resolutions have been exhausted.



Besides we didn't want Saddam to use the WMD that we gave him when Iraq was fighting Iran. How you think the US knew Saddam had WMDs?


DO YOU READ???? (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html)



<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/fmjeff.gif">
<br>
It made my heart sing.

[high fly]

Good one, FMJeff.
I swear, the lack of comprehension in many of the right-wingers is stunning.
No matter how many times they hear that Saddam had no WMD, hell, even from Bush, they still believe he did.
Same with the Iraq/al Qaeda connection to 9/11.




" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[high fly]

As to the poll, I voted yes, because of the definition that Kerry gave (that the right-wingers immediately misinterpreted).
That is that a "global test" is that we go to war for reasons easily explainable to the american people and the world, and when the American people support it.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[high fly]

So Kerry is willing to give other countries veto power of wether the U.S. should protect itself or not?

I was about to make sure that this was a joke, but then I stopped and thought about it. There really are people out there, I suppose, who believe the Republican spin on what Kerry said, even after he explicitly said that he would never give veto power to any other country. Even in the same phrase as the "global test" sentence he said "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. "



Right, TooCute.
It was spelled out for the lad in little, easy to understand words and no matter how many times he reads it, he'll STILL think it's something about giving France veto power over the President.
Right there in the post above his, and he still doesn't get it.

Amazing.
Whaya wanna bet he thinks Saddam was in on 9/11?

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[monsterone]

i look at most foreign policies as a personal issue, ie. someimes it is adventageous to fight to prove a point.

as far as going into iraq, it's a double edged sword. we have a foot hold in the mid east and can strike at any time, but we are loosing american men and women.

honestly the world is better off w/o these animals; we can all agree on that. it is extremely difficult to fight an enemy that has no nation. but i feel global politic convelute everything and as the world's super power we ned to decide what is right for us, and the world next.

there are a ton of arabs in france, and supporting us would disrupt their domestic situation - thus a lack of support.

yet they all had their hans out when it can to diviving up reconstruction $$$$.

plain and simple, we have no one to answer to since the rest of the world does not have the clout we have. we are not a global community yet, but removing these animals is the first step towards it.

<center><img border=1 src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=monsterone01"><br></center>

<center>

<font color="gray" size="1">do you know what "nemesis" means? a righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent.
personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me.
</font>

</center>
<font color= "red" size="6">

[Mike Teacher]

Something tells me mdr55 didn't make debate team captain at Stupid U.


Hey You know we're supposed to keep the insults down like we were told by the Mods and the Adm... oops. Never mind.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig">

[high fly]

Monster, might does not make right.
We can't go around wrecking other countries and ordering them around just because we have the best military.

The lives of our military personnel are much too precious to be thrown away just so we can swagger and talk trash to the rest of the world.

And now in Iraq, we don't have a foothold, but rather it is more like a beartrap that we have stepped into.
We now have 140,000 troops tied down, unable to respond to a REAL threat that may arise elsewhere.

This war has multiplied our enemies, given bin Laden legitimacy because he predicted that we would invade an oil-rich Muslim country that had not attacked us, it has destroyed all of the good will we enjoyed after 9/11, it has divided our people who were once united and now that the lies it was based on have been exposed, it has damaged our credibility.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

This message was edited by high fly on 10-7-04 @ 5:50 AM

[A.J.]

Thank God Bush wasn't President during WW2 or else we would have bombed Thailand after Pearl Harbor
was attacked.

Pearl Harbor -- that's why we went to war against Germany!

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/040203_belushi.jpg

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Mike Teacher]

it has divided our people who were once united


for the sake of debate i'll cede all th rest but i dont really remember us being really united prior to all of this, election 2000 comes to mind, and the three [four? five?] presidential admins before didnt exactly unite the country. when were we united?

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig">

[wilee]

The North Atlantic Treaty states that NATO will "refrain in [its] international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." The document specifies that NATO was created to defend "the territorial integrity, political independence or security" of its members in exercising the right of "collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations." Whatever one thinks of the actions of the Milosevic regime in suppressing a secessionist movement within its own borders, it must be admitted that the Yugoslav regime did nothing to threaten the "integrity, political independence or security" of NATO members. Thus NATO's attack on that regime violated the alliance's founding treaty.

On the home front, HR 1659, which passed by a vote of 249 to180, prohibited the Department of Defense from using appropriated funds for the deployment of ground troops in Kosovo. HJ 44, the request for Congress to Authorize a Declaration of War against Kosovo failed 427-2 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll102.xml).

It's not apples and oranges, it's the same thing from both parties.

<IMG SRC="http://cwjr.home.infionline.net/sigpic.gif">
The sun in your eyes made some of the lies worth believing

[high fly]

it has divided our people who were once united


for the sake of debate i'll cede all th rest but i dont really remember us being really united prior to all of this,

After 9/11.
Without the debate on Iraq, had we continued to concentrate on al Qaeda, I think we could have kept more of that unity, or perhaps I should say have avoided a good portion of the rancor we have now.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[Mike Teacher]

I'm not sure we were united even after that, but assuming we were, Sadly, it disappeared, and quickly.

Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig">

[high fly]

You were right the first time. The other points were stronger anyway.

One thing I like about this "global test" thingy is the way it exposes the unthinkingsacks of water.
I mean, Kerry defined it very simply and in a way that's easy to understand.

Seeing these lumps of clay seize on it like it's giving France a veto over our President or something is a sight to behold.




" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[furie]

Clinton, comparatively speaking, pulled that war off.

Bush blew this one to smithereens.

If we're really gonna compare the two, let's look at in that context, too.


but that's not the point of the thread. How the war was handled, aerial bombing vs ground troops isn't the point. it's acting with or without a worldwide consensus and how that validates our actions.

The only thing is, the world was somewhat for the Bosnian war, but didn't Europe still resent us?



<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FG_squid.jpg">

<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

[TheMojoPin]

It's MY point in this thread. I posted several times here when the Iraq war began that despite my opposition, I hope the war would utlimately succeed, and we'd end up "looking better" even before this current election. That didn't happen. Bush gambled and lost. If post-war Iraq had been planned and handled better, things could be completely different at this point, and I would have had no qualms about admitting I was wrong.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[furie]

Thank God Bush wasn't President during WW2 or else we would have bombed Thailand after Pearl Harbor was attacked.


Actually, we did. Thailand (then known as Siam) was allied with Japan.


<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FG_squid.jpg">

<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

[Yerdaddy]

On the home front, HR 1659, which passed by a vote of 249 to180, prohibited the Department of Defense from using appropriated funds for the deployment of ground troops in Kosovo. HJ 44, the request for Congress to Authorize a Declaration of War against Kosovo failed 427-2.
The Congress hasn't made a formal declaration of war since WWII. So why should we assume that a Republican proposed request for one for Kosovo, when we didn't even use ground forces, was a serious vote? On the authorization to use force, which is the way wars have been conducted since the War Powers Act of 1973, was <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:s.con.res.00021:" target="_blank">S.CON.RES.21</a> and went down to a tie of 213-213.

All of which has nothing to do with this thread.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[furie]

http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/images/stopus.jpg


<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FG_squid.jpg">

<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

[HBox]

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/gt.gif

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[mdr55]

Something tells me mdr55 didn't make debate team captain at Stupid U.

On the contrary I'm a pretty good at debating. For people that know me, no matter what side you're on, for the hell of it I'll argue for the other side. Since it seemed that many people were for Kerry, I went in the opposite direction.



So now I'll flip-flop.




Cheney has some nerve saying that Edwards lacks experience. If I re-collect correctly, before Bush became president what experience did he have except name recognition of being the son of a former U.S. president? So much for being a president that was going to UNITE america. He's done more damage in four years as president than any other president has. The credibility of the U.S. in peoples' eyes has been destroyed especially in other countries. The alleged coalition is a joke (what is it? US-90%, country1-1%, country 2- 1.5%, etc......so much for being an equal coalition of having troops in Iraq). Remember Osama: Wanted dead or alive?? So did we get him yet?? Oh...but we got Saddam, you say? What the fuck did he have to do with 9-11? Jack shit. He dropped the ball on all the support that we had from other countries due to 9-11 in invading Afghanistan. What makes Bush think that he'll be able to bring democracy to the middle east if in their long history there never was one???? Who the heck does Bush think he is Jesus? I bet you 1 million bucks if his wife or daughters were captured by the terrorist he be on the damn phone negotiating for their release but if it was me or you what do you think he would say? The US doesn't negotiate with terrorist. So much for Bush being a uniter of the people. The US is more divided than ever. And the ignorance of admitting a mistake is just plan out stupid and arrogant. No wonder the world hates us. The only good thing I can see about Bush being re-elected is that we don't have to see his sorry butt after his 4 years is over.


And just for the hell of it.......we're spending more money on Iraq....and it's not even a STATE (I wouldn't be surprised if Bush made it the 51st state of America). What ever happened to the Iraq war financing itself??? Isn't that why we secured the oil well first?? We had enough troops for that didn't we!! If you can't see Bush is wrong for America, then you must be blind as a bat.

This message was edited by mdr55 on 10-7-04 @ 11:46 PM

[TheMojoPin]

Something tells me mdr55 didn't make debate team captain at Stupid U.

Jesus Christ, Jeff.

Shut the fuck up.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FMJeff]

Up your fucking ass, Mojo.

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/fmjeff.gif">
<br>
It made my heart sing.

[Mike Teacher]

wow



<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig">

[mdr55]

wow

Not safe for work (http://nycomputerpros.com/gallery/album08/O_A_Viper_bar_10_1_04_067) ;p

[TheMojoPin]

Up your fucking ass, Mojo.

Eat one.

What did he say that deserved the "Stupid U." response? If you want me to supposedly "run" this forum, please don't come in here and pull the shit I'm supposed to tell other people not to do.

I mean, come on, man. It makes zero sense.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Mike Teacher]

my name jose jimenez

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig">

This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 10-8-04 @ 2:24 AM

[shamus mcfitzy]

Monster, might does not make right.
We can't go around wrecking other countries and ordering them around just because we have the best military.


slow down, look around at your fellow Americans and reconsider that "we". A good portion of Americans feel that we can in fact do whatever we want. Hell, a good portion of Americans will not see, let's say, 5 hours of CNN in a year. It's sad that that probably isn't that false.



When Israel attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, EVERY country in the world condemned it. Is there anyone here who would like to stick up for a nuclear Iraq?


So the U.S. can have Nuclear weapons but when other countries try to develop them........who are we to tell them not to?? How many actual countries have actually used Nuclear weapons???


I thought I'd be the first to bite, but mdr55 did for me. There's part of me that feels that we are no more responsible to have nukes than Saddam is. I'm not just talkign about Bush here when I say that a president can easily be persuaded by his supporters to do what they want (in fact Edwards could be a perfect example on the other side, if for only the fact that he's inexperienced in ANY public office).

We certainly shouldn't be the ones to lead a charge at disarming. So I feel if we have nukes, so should any WORLD LEADER (note the emphasis, as i define that as someone that has a recognizable constituency that would prefer not to be getting nuked). Maybe misuse would then cause disarment, but that's pretty important.



And on Kosovo, I'm sure that Europe supported it in a backdoor way at the very least. From what I remember reading (in NY Times articles, so I believe them when it comes to beating a wardrum), Germany was certainly worried about the Croatians considering the fact that a good portion of the population is German-speaking and closely connected to Germany. The Russians similarly with another of the Yugoslav republics (kinda sleepy, not in much of a researchin' mood) and to a lesser degree the Serbs. So I at least believe that Europe was more interested in resolution.



and to quickly clear up my earlier post, I definitely do not mean that the government should function in asking the world community before doing anything. The US has the right to do whatever it wants (as I think I made clear from the supporting Saddam with nukes) and nobody needs the world to check it. It would nice though if the US could consider other countries and take their opinions into account because we can be wrong in more of a shortsighted way (rather than a misleading one i guess).

if you're reading this you're probably a better man than me.....

This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 10-8-04 @ 2:16 AM

[FMJeff]

Up your fucking ass, Mojo.

Eat one.

What did he say that deserved the "Stupid U." response? If you want me to supposedly "run" this forum, please don't come in here and pull the shit I'm supposed to tell other people not to do.

I mean, come on, man. It makes zero sense.


I'm sorry mdr55...the stupid u post was supposed to be a lighthearted shot...you will notice my first post was devoid of namecalling...i didn't think your opinoins were stupid...just wrong...it wasn't until you brought my dad into the analogy that i found your arguement to be a little ludicrous...which made zero sense to me so i said you went to stupid u.

man...i guess saying someone went to stupid u seems to be tantamount to calling someone a "nigger" nowadays....

"Hey man, looks like you didnt make the debate team at stupid u. "
"Shut the fuck up."

Yeah that sounds fair.

Yeah I'm sorry, but when it comes to the war in Iraq, it aggravates me to see people continue to support this president while maintaining a blind eye to the facts out there. I'm sorry if my passion got ahead of my judgement there, but I think we call move on with our egos and lives after being called stupid.

Sorry mojo, but I don't think i deserved the shut the fuck up comment. If anything, I didn't deserve it publically.

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/fmjeff.gif">
<br>
It made my heart sing.

[TheMojoPin]

Fine.

Look, I'm not naive enough to try and say people don't fight dirty in here, but the comment to mdr just really came outta left field and seemed like a cheap shot, joke or not.

That's all I'm saying. You had decent points to make. Let them yell for you.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FMJeff]

of course it was a cheap shot...people don't fire cheap shots in this forum? All i'm saying is if my stupid u comment is the worst thing said in this forum to warrant a "shut the fuck up", then maybe you all should be trying a little harder.

Anyway, Fight over. I love you, even though i told you to fuck off in staff room.

Everyone, Mojo is doing a great job in the politics forum keeping pandora in the box.

Round of applause for mojo.

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/fmjeff.gif">
<br>
It made my heart sing.

[FMJeff]

slow down, look around at your fellow Americans and reconsider that "we". A good portion of Americans feel that we can in fact do whatever we want. Hell, a good portion of Americans will not see, let's say, 5 hours of CNN in a year. It's sad that that probably isn't that false.


Ok back to the issue at hand here.


I remember just after 9/11 sitting at a bar in Staten Island adjacent to a main road watching guidos and thugs drive by in thier mustangs with "Kill all Ghandis" and "Nuke Em All" painted in white on thier back windshields adorned by American flags. If that isn't the best example of either the level of intelligence in this country or our globally embarassing ignorance of other cultures I don't know what is.

That's not to say we lack educated, opinionated people in this country...but like in any society the common folk are not always the best informed...they take thier news like they take thier coffee...the same way...every morning...from the same source. They don't want to investigate further...to understand the external aggravating factors. They want to be fed thier news...digest it...feel like they're participating in the world around them....and go on with thier daily lives....because most people are just too busy to concern themselves with world affairs...they have jobs...they need to make money to survive and take care of thier family. 9/11 FORCED these people to take notice and get involved...not from an educational standpoint...but from one of survival....because for these people, not paying attention to world affairs could cost them thier lives....BUT at the same time...there is still that persistant mental laziness...they still want that news fed to them, only now they feel obligated to devote more time out of thier day to paying attention...and what they see and hear from thier president is horrifying predictions of impending disaster which can only be thwarted by invading other counties...

well now we know...no wmd's...saddam is captured and the terrorists continue to thrive and maim and murder and bomb and destroy....taking saddam out didn't do anything but give these people a cause...

the fact that this administration honestly believes in thier heart of hearts alone that stripping saddam of power actually did anything is the most sobering reason NOT to vote for them...

do people actually think that's how terrorism works? you cut off the head and one doesn't rise up to take its place? that the al sadr's and the al zarqawi's of the world will just dissapear because we flexed our military might?

NOTHING will change in the middle east or the world unless we change the political/social/economic climate in the middle east into a peace that every person in that region can accept.



<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/fmjeff.gif">
<br>
It made my heart sing.

[shamus mcfitzy]

NOTHING will change in the middle east or the world unless we change the political/social/economic climate in the middle east into a peace that every person in that region can accept.


I don't think anything will change in this world unless we change the political/social/economic climate in the US (well in the political sense, educational), as well as elsewhere. Or of course if we cease to be the ones with the sabre leading the world into battle. The former would seem much rosier to Americans I would think.

I don't consider myself VERY WELL educated. I am educated, but would really hope that I haven't reached some kind of upper-eshalance (see I can't even come close to spelling that right) that allows me to see what is going on. Really its a vicious cycle if those in power keep people uneducated and therefore people never change the system which keeps them so, but there are people doing it everyday, actually craving knowledge. Either our government is mindfucking us much more than other governments or for some reason, wanting to get educated has become a recessive gene in Americans. Both are scary and both still point to just general stupidity.

[A.J.]

Everyone, Mojo is doing a great job in the politics forum keeping pandora in the box.

Mojo's keeping Pantera in a box?

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[mikeyboy]

Everyone, Mojo is doing a great job in the politics forum keeping pandora in the box.

Mojo's keeping Pantera in a box?



Well, It's not like he can do much on his own since Mojo cut off his arms and legs.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=mikeyboy">
Ron & Fez Show Log (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)
Just because you don't listen doesn't mean I don't have a radio show
The Music Mikey Likes Show on radiobbq, weekdays 12-2 (http://www.live365.com/stations/radiobbq)

[wilee]

All of which has nothing to do with this thread.
It has everything to do with this thread. Everyone keeps saying how the U.N. was against the U.S. invading Iraq, which is tantamount to saying that this war doesn't pass the global test.

I see them pan Bush for Iraq, yet they don't look back one administration earlier and see the same thing (no resolution from the U.N. endorsing the NATO-lead action which was a violation of NATO's founding documents) happening from the other party.

I'm not endorsing Bush, nor am I a Republican apologist. I am strictly middle of the road- a realist. I was hoping that the WMD would be found to justify our actions in Iraq. They haven't, so basically we went to war with Iraq on misinformation (I keep seeing "Bush lied to us" posted, but no one has proven that he knew the information was inaccurate when he and Congress acted on it).

I keep hearing Kerry say "I have a plan for Iraq", but nothing more. He condemns Bush for his actions but won't let the American people know what he intends to do. In my book, it's six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. It's pretty words, but I haven't seen evidence of substance behind it. Kerry, if elected, may well do what Clinton and Bush did, and "global test" will become nothing more than a sound bite.

<IMG SRC="http://cwjr.home.infionline.net/sigpic.gif">
The sun in your eyes made some of the lies worth believing