Canada, France, And The U.S. (debate carried over from previous thread)

There has been a debate going on in (believe it or not) the Unit section of Civ Fanatics. Do to not wanting bother the thread starter, I have decided to open this up in a more appropriate section. Feel free to join in any time. The thread started out about Canada And the u.s. although to be honest turned into us defending ourselves against the 'atrocities' we committed.

Here is the original thread-
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31273&perpage=20&display=&pagenumber=1

Latest post

---------------By Ralendil---------------------

well just two answers

thisismymsn20-"The entire world won't have to pay for the U.S.A. policy." What the hell are you talking about? Since when did France pay a dime to the U.S., when did France do anything for any country other then France?

Click to expand...

=> it is difficult to explain to you as you think it is normal. I don't think give money would repair something !!!! Even if you are the best contributor ! Usa don't want to apply world convention signed by the entire world or nearly (yes they are not in so nearly). Usa exploit environmental arguments to impose some points in international convention or to impose taxes... etc...
The envirronement is, as I see that, the very last thing you would care of.
For pollution => http://www.greenyearbook.org/profiles/france.htm
http://www.greenyearbook.org/profiles/usa.htm
Compare yourself the progress of France and Usa like
SOX Emissions
Fr: Change from 1980 (%): -71.7 (OECD average: 39.2)
Us: Change from 1980 (%): -21.4
Etc....


I am french. I haven't forget Algeria, The construction of the france (succesions of feodals war), the indochina, the Algeria, The Rainbow warrior etc...
Even the nuclear test in Algeria on militaries and nuclear test in pacific on civilians.

So as I have said there's no evil country or good country !
Each country has made atrocities.
Would you want some quote ofg attrocities from US...
Like when they have discovered the first concentration camp...
Like use of DTT...
etc... (now I have quoted most examples i think)

No one can say we are the good country !

The examples
- Iraq has used bio weapons on his own people
- Iraq has used civilizians as shields during wars (and peace time)
- Iraq used chemical and bio weapons on Iran
- Iraq has funded terroism
- Iraq has harbored terroists
- Iraq has given weapons to terrorists

aren't a reason to make war on them... cause all our occidentalis nations have done these errors and atrocities.
- Iraq has used bio weapons on his own people => US has exterminated natives americans (indians) with provided to them contaminated blanket (lid?????)
- Iraq has used civilizians as shields during wars (and peace time) => as many of countries.
- Iraq used chemical and bio weapons on Iran => and us support research about that
- Iraq has funded terroism => and us has provided weapons rto them when they were usefull for the USA anti communist war.
- Iraq has harbored terroists => CIA has trained terrorists.
- Iraq has given weapons to terrorists => and Cia most weapons than Irak can give to them...

Well I stop here...

And i am interrestedby this thread just to confront our point of view. I think we are all as reponsible and polit as we need to do that. But not sure civfanatics modos would like that...


Oh and for that

when did France do anything for any country other then France?

Click to expand...

Well we give to africans countries a very important help with Lome, and with Europe and even Frnace itself. We have canceled most of africans debts ! So you can't say we do nothing for other countries...

Now i will wait a new thread as others....
------------------------------------
Here it is. I will reply later tonight with an equally non flaming response. All I will say now is that your comparing a 3.535.935 sq. mi. country, with a 212.686 sq. mi. Country. And you ask which has more pollution?

I was simply compare our efforts

France:
Forest area Average annual change 1990-2000 (%): +0.4
Emissions of Kyoto Protocol Gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) Change from 1990 (%): +0.9
NOX Emissions Change from 1987 (%): +20.6
SOX Emissions Change from 1980 (%): -71.7 (OECD average: 39.2)
Protection (totally and partially) of natural areas
% of land area 1999: 13.5

USA
Forest area Average annual change 1990-2000 (%): +0.4
Emissions of Kyoto Protocol Gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) Change from 1990 (%): +11.2
NOX Emissions Change from 1987 (%): +3.6
SOX Emissions Change from 1980 (%): -21.4
Protection (totally and partially) of natural areas
% of land area 1999: 13.1


Well now compare
We are not the best.... I think we can make more efforts yet...

I must admit my first sentence about this was a little too strong ...

us defending ourselves against the 'atrocities' we committed.

Click to expand...

It is exactly I want to say... Why you want to defend your country about this? This was errors due to extraordinary moments of world history...
Me I can't defend my country for collaboration during second world war (jews killed by Vichy government), Algeria tortures, Indochina occupation policy, Call of Alger (De gaulle), algerians who have fighted for french army abandonned on algerian beach, the concentration camps for spanishes republicans (Rivesaltes etc...), concentration camps during Algeria war, nuclear test on civilians without telling them they were exposed on something unknow at the time of these experiments, etc...

I think we have to take it upon ourselves not to allow
hostile countries to develop nuclear weapons or
biological weapons. Or any new non hostile countries from developing them. I think if countries like Iraq did
manage to get nukes, that gives them a unprecidented
level of deterence that we can't allow. What kind of
world would it be if nearly every nation had nuclear weapons.
We are asking for trouble there and would almost certainly
see nukes being used. Also, I think that its the responsibility
of nations that already posses nuclear weapons to
reduce their stockpiles dramatically and develop a missle
shield that would be used 'for everyone'. I honestly believe
that if a country like Iraq managed to develop nuclear weapons
that it would be inevitable for them to use them. What would
stop them from saying to the UN "Hey, we have nukes now, therefor you must now drop all sanctions or we will
release them on Israel (in turn of course Israel saying they
would nuke Iraq back, you know, with those nukes their
not supposed to have). Essentially, unless you wanted
future conflicts to become nuclear, you have to stop them
before they can develop that possibility. I also think it
was a big mistake letting India and Pakistan get their hands
on nukes as well.

Ok, so Iraq recently said they will let inspectors back in
unconditionally.. thats fine, but the inspectors must have full reign of the country. The ability to search every inch of the Country without having to tell the Iraqi government
that they are going somewhere, they just go there.
Not tell the Iraqi gov't "ok, we're going here tommorow" thus
giving them a chance to remove the evidence.

But there are other issues for a Iraq invasion...many little things
that become big...For example:

- Saddam offering the families of suicide bombers up to $25 000 as compensation or a honor bonus.

- Iraq routinely fireing at allied aircraft patrolling
the no fly zone that was created as terms of Iraq's surrender
in '91 (though its funny how they now say they don't recognize
the no fly zones)....what do they think would happen if
they actually shot a plane down.

- There is evidence that Iraq holds (or held) a US
pilot that was shot down during the gulf war. But they
won't even talk about giving us more info as to the
fate of this pilot. Some suspect he is still alive and being
held as a POW.

Its sad that these countries even attempt to develop what
they think is the ultimate weapon. In todays
world we don't tolerate nations invading other countries
solely for the purpose of invading and gaining land or wealth
out of it, so there really is no reason to have these weapons,
if a country is determined to attack another, than nukes
are not going to deter them from doing it.

To make a long story short, we can't wait for Iraq to
get these weapons and risk them using them, which
they probably would sooner or later. Someone should
be reminding Saddam that he surrendered unconditionally in
1991 and there were terms laid on the table for that surrender.
He has not obliged by them, its been over a decade and its
time to do something about it. But I guess we should have
finished the job back then....You can thank Colin Powell for that,
he opposed going into Baghdad and finishing the job, he feared
that "it would look bad and feared international and domestic
backlash" both because of finishing the job and the US losses
that would incur.

Ralendil-Why you want to defend your country about this?

Click to expand...

Ahhh but im not defending the u.s. for persecution of blacks and Native Americans. Im She asked w simply defending th u.s, as a country that is no worse than any other. It seems many want to criticize, a example would be to a recent (1 month ago) trip to Canada. I met a old lady from Finland. The first thing she said was "Are you an American?" My reply:"Yes" Her reply: "Then I will have nothing more to do with you". Its annoying to have someone walk out of a room every time you walk in. btw This was a small 'hotel' more of a house that offered boarding. Very hard to avoid someone in, you had to really try, she went faaaaar out of her way not to talk to Americans.

"Are you an American?" My reply:"Yes" Her reply: "Then I will have nothing more to do with you".

Click to expand...

Its to bad that people can be so shallow, but thats the
world we live in. Its like an Iraqi citizen visiting the US...
Odds are he/she is gonna get a very similar reception, even
if they are a good person. Its like saying to yourself
ok...I'm going to hate everyone with a red hat today, because
I don't like hats, but I really hate red hats! everyone who
wears red hats are infidels!

I think the majority of Anti-Americanism is from countries that
still have the cold war perception or countries that don't
agree with American foreign policy. Lets take China for
example, I have read that even at school young chinese
students are taught the Anti-American sentiments. What
I wonder what has the US done to China to deserve such
hatred (other than back Taiwan, even though Japan has
more of a claim to Taiwan than China does, but thats another
topic). You don't see American schools teaching young students that China is the enemy and that all chinese citizens must
be hated. Then you have the middle east countries who
hate the US because they won't let them invade Israel (I mean
thats what it comes down to in the end). Maybe it would
be best for countries like the US to not give out any foreign aid
and not worry about what happens outside of their own country
other than trade? I don't think that would help, you would
still have people hating you. I do find it quite humerous
when the Anti-American folks move to the US and are
granted citizenship and talk about how much better
their country is....I also can't stand folks who call
themselves Something-American or Something-Canadian....
it should be "I'm an American primarily with a X background".
Thats just a pet peeve of mine heh

Doragon-Japan has more of a claim to Taiwan than China does, (but thats another topic).

Click to expand...

Interesting. . . Feel free to explain.

Doragon-"I'm an American primarily with a X background".

Click to expand...

This is true. I think a lot of Anti-Americanism (if you want to call it that) comes from back round. While not a big issue anymore, There used to be distinct boundaries, even within cities. 'China Town' and 'Little Italy' or 'Greek Town'. All those names mean now is where you can go to buy Chinese food or Italian. So It seems everyone is erasing there nationality. ethnic regions, to me, are a great thing. So much comes from them, your religion, your diet, your tastes. Why get rid of that? Unfortunately, racism is the side effect here, a bad one at that. No, knowing someone’s back round helps you to better understand them. Its prejudging them wrongly for it, that's the problem.

Interesting. . . Feel free to explain.

Click to expand...

Alright, here is a timeline of Taiwans history ...Warning...LONG

1590- Jan Huygen van Linschoten, a Dutch navigator discovers what he called "Ilha Formosa" (meaning "Beautiful
island")"

1624-1662- The island was Dutch occupied

1662 - Dutch were defeated by a Chinese pirate, Cheng Cheng-kung (Koxinga)

1683 - Chinese troops (Ch'ing troops) defeat the pirate rule
on the island.

1683 -The new Manchu emperors (China) were not eager to
extend their rule over the island. They were "inland" people with
little knowledge of the offshore islands and even less skill at
naval warfare. In the subsequent years, immigration to the island
from the coastal provinces of China increased, but the people
came to flee the wars and famines on the mainland, and did not
come on behalf of the rulers in Peking. Taiwan thus remained a
loose-lying area for the next 200 years. At times, the Manchu
attempted to extend their control over the unruly inhabitants, but
time and again the islanders fought back.

1870's - China hardly had any influence in the coastal waters
around Taiwan is apparent from the two following examples:
when in the 1870's Taiwanese pirates captured American,
Japanese and French ships passing the island, these
governments protested to Peking, but the Manchu emperor
said: "Taiwan is beyond our territory."

1870's - Japan began to colonize parts of Taiwan and
started to have a sphere of influence in the southern part
of the island.

1870's - French got so upset by the recurring attacks on their
ships and the Chinese inaction, that they sent a fleet to the
island, and for nine months in 1884-85, the northern part of
Taiwan was French territory.

1887 - It wasn't until 1887, that the Manchu Imperial authorities
decided to declare Taiwan to be a "province" of their Empire:
they wanted to outmaneuver the Japanese, who were expanding
their influence to the South.

1895 - The ploy didn't work: in 1895 the Japanese defeated the
Manchu's in the Sino-Japanese War, and in the Treaty of
Shimonoseki, China ceded Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity (not 99
years, like Hong Kong's New Territories, but in perpetuity, i.e.
forever).

*** Important note here, China only had rule of the island
for 8 years in its history up until this point.

1895 - The Taiwanese didn't like the idea of incorporation into Japan, and on 25 May 1895 -- with the assistance of disenchanted Manchu officials -- the Taiwan Republic, the first independent republic in Asia was established.
However, a few days later, on 29 May 1895, a Japanese military
force of over 12,000 soldiers landed in Northern Taiwan, and
started to crush the movement. On 21 October 1895, Japanese
imperial troops entered Tainan, the southern capital of the
Taiwan Republic, ending its short life.

1895 - 1943 - Taiwan is Japanese owned and ran during this
peroid of 48 years. The Japanese occupation was harsh, but at
least the Japanese were not corrupt. The educational system
was built up to the same level as in Japan, infrastructure, trains,
roads, industry etc. were developed extensively

1943 - 1945 - The next major event which affected Taiwan's status was WW II: during the War, in 1943, the Allied Powers held the Cairo Conference, and on one sleepy afternoon in the hot Cairo sun, they decided to agree with Chiang Kai-shek's request that Taiwan be "returned to (Nationalist) China." This text found its way into the Cairo Declaration, but of course occurred without any presence or agreement of representatives of the Taiwanese people.
When the War actually ended in 1945, the Allied powers agreed that Chiang's troops would "temporarily occupy Taiwan, on behalf of the Allied forces." As we see, this "temporary" has become rather permanent. Initially, the Taiwanese were glad to get rid of the Japanese, but soon their joy turned into sorrow and anger: the newcomers from China turned out to be corrupt, repressive, and uncivilized.

1947 - The tension burst out into the open in the February 28th Incident of 1947, when a small incident in Taipei led to large-scale demonstrations. The Kuomintang was initially taken aback, but secretly sent troops from the mainland, which started to round up and execute a whole generation of leading figures, students, lawyers, doctors. In all between 18.000 and 28.000 people were killed, and during the "white terror" of the following years, thousands of people were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by the KMT's highly efficient KGB-machine, the Taiwan Garrison Command.

1951 - 1952 - In 1951-52 the Allied Powers and Japan formally concluded World War II by concluding the San Francisco Peace Treaty. That Treaty is important for Taiwan, because it decided that Japan gave up sovereignty over Taiwan, but it was not determined who was the beneficiary: it was concluded that "...the future status of Taiwan will be decided in accord with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
The Charter of the UN contains article 1.2 which states that it is a purpose of the UN "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..." The formal result of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is thus that the people of Taiwan should determine the future status of the island based on the principle of self-determination. This Treaty is thus the first, and the last, international treaty of the 20th Century which deals with the status of Taiwan. During the following 20 years Taiwan was
primarily Taiwanese Ran, but under martial law

1952 - 1972 - from 1952 to 1972, the Kuomintang was able to
build up Taiwan economically, thanks to the hard work of the
Taiwanese, and the sound infrastructure built up by the
Japanese. But on the diplomatic front, they lost ground, and in
1971, their dreamworld of representing all of China fell apart
when Nixon and Kissinger made their "opening" to China.

1972 - was the year of the infamous Shanghai Communiqué between the US and the Chinese authorities in Peking. According to a 1985 Rand Corporation report written for US intelligence agencies, the prime US negotiator, Mr. Henry Kissinger, is reported to have agreed to the text of the Communiqué after a dinner of maotai and Peking duck. He reportedly exclaimed to his hosts: "After a dinner of maotai and Peking duck, I'll sign anything" . This communiqué is the basis for the present so-called "One China" policy of the Clinton administration.
What does the communiqué say, and what does it mean ? In the 1972 communiqué the US "acknowledged" the Chinese position that there is but one China, and that Taiwan is part of China. Does this wording mean that the US, and other nations using similar wording, "agree" with the Chinese position ? Of course not. It merely states that these nations took note of the Chinese position, but did not give their own position on the matter. "Acknowledge" means simply "taking note of" but not necessarily "agreeing" with someones position.
In any case, these communiqué's between the United States and China are of little relevance to Taiwan. Firstly, they were simply statements at the end of a meeting, and were not ratified, either by the US Congress or by the international community, and thus do not have the weight of a Treaty. Secondly, most importantly, they were made without any involvement or representation of the people of Taiwan, and can thus not have any validity in determining the future of the island.

I could keep going, but for the most part Taiwans
history proves that it has never been a
integral part of Chinese history and that all infrastructure
at this time were the result of Japan. Its my view
that if anyone has a claim, its Japan, because they
essentially prepared Taiwan for what it is today.
Also, The UN also said that Taiwans future is for Taiwans
people to decide in the 50's...So if Taiwan doesn't
belong to themself, then they belong to Japan.

First I wanna state one thing... Iraq said unconditional weapons inspections. However, I believe it was yesterday or today, they sent a letter to the UN stating a few conditions. Plus, shortly after they sent this letter they fired at 15-20 coalition planes partolling the no fly zones.

Iraq is ****in buying time!!!

Second, I do believe that if an Iraqi came to the U.S., in different areas he might be singled out. However I truthfully for the most part can't see where we would single out anyone to such an extent as to ask them what race then leave them alone. Or even anything close to that.

Lastly, if Iraq gets nuclear, bio, or chemical weapons, assuming he doesn't already, and uses one of them on another country. I personally would say **** the UN. We, UK, ..., all showed you the proof. BEGGED for you to do something, even said we would do it alone but would prefer your "commitment." And now look at Isreal, Saudi Arabia, or whoever.

I used to be a fan of the UN, even if it doesn't seem like it. But at this point it is way to political. Every country looks out for itself and not for the "world" even the U.S. I just can't see much of a use for it. Just my humble opinion, but yea.

One of the conditions under the unconditional inspections (sounds like something from the Department of Redudancy Department) is that the only sites that are "allowed" to be searched are military sites. That means if Baghdad U. has a biochemical program, the inspectors can't go there.

I used to be a fan of the UN, even if it doesn't seem like it. But at this point it is way to political.

Click to expand...

Very true, the UN has become somewhat of a joke.
Seems more like a place for countries to come together
and bicker and complain.

UN holds no weight anymore either. I guess its time for Nato
to step forward and be the organization to get things done.

I see everyone except unscratched foot got the E-mail. looks like I'll have to re-send his.

thisismysn20I just can't see much of a use for it

Click to expand...

U.N.-
Think of it this way, would you rather have an alliance of 200 nations. Or 4 separate alliances of 50 nations? Keeping them in, means they rely on the bigger countries for support. Most countries in the U.N. are extremely small. For instance, would you expect Luxembourg, with an army (in the 1990's) of 800, to come to our aid vrs. Iraq? That’s not saying if they drafted they wouldn’t get somewhere, but are you expecting them to do that? CIS (1990) had 3.400.000 after the cold war, the u.s. only had 2.000.000. And China had as mush as Russia. Unscratchedfoot made a comment about N. Korea before, in th 90's they had an army of 1.000.000.

Taiwan-

Doragon-1895 - 1943 - Taiwan is Japanese owned and ran during this
period of 48 years. The Japanese occupation was harsh, but at
least the Japanese were not corrupt. The educational system
was built up to the same level as in Japan, infrastructure, trains,
roads, industry etc. were developed extensively

Click to expand...

This is strange, I remember reading a book about the Japanese-U.S. war, from a medics point of view, he said that the Japanese would drive stakes through the wounded GI’s to keep them in place, then shoot medics as they came to help. They wouldn’t surrender, because the propaganda was so high. Could you guess if this kind of Propaganda was going on in Taiwan? You said Harsh, does this mean they were suppressing constant revolutions?

Your entire post was very interesting, but what of Chiang being in Taiwan? And the u.s giving him arms to re-conquer the mainland? If I remember correctly For a while the u.s. considered the island of Taiwan China? Im really not well informed about this but that’s what I read.

The U.S. says that it "respects" China's view of "one China." Simply because the U.S. doesn't want any confrontations. However it supplies huge weapons to Taiwan to keep it's indepnance.

I don't believe you can call the UN an alliances. Because regardless of what the UN does, often times Nato, Middle Eastern nations, and so on do what they want. Notice how now, most of NATO is siding with the U.S., saying they will help regardless of the UN. Well not most of it, but quite a few...

I would love the U.S. one day to say, UN is useless good bye!!!!

The Charter of the United Nations says, and I quote:

Nothing in the present Charter prevents the existence of regional arrangements (systems) or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

Click to expand...

NATO’s NBC seems to be a big strong point in ‘a reason for war’. My point is, and why I defend the U.N. is, think of how long it took for the u.s. to go to war in WWII. And that’s While Germany was bombing our trade ships. So how long do you think it would take for a league of 190 nations to declare war on a fellow member, Iraq? Who has been with the U.N. since 1945?

This thread is missing an important element: opposition. Where's good ole Alpine Trooper when you need him? I think all of us here share similar opinions.

Doragon's right about the japanese occupation of Taiwan being harsh. In fact it was just about the cruelest occupation in history with any resistance at all resulting in death. Anyways I sure hope Japan has no claim on Taiwan as it would be a shame for that country to become like Japan is today.

Did you all see the newscast of Rumsfeld's speech explaining his reasoning for attacking Iraq? The hecklers were funny and Rumsfeld handled it pretty good I thought. I saw Bush's speech to the UN on the same topic, and although he has my full support on the issue, I gotta say it really sounded like an impossible ultimatum he demanded from Iraq. Basically from what he said, the only way to avoid being attacked by the US would be to somehow have Saddam removed and replaced by a compliant government. Like I mean, is Saddam gonna agree to his own removal? No. The iraqi people are utterly paranoid of his regime. They would never even say a bad word about Saddam.

What did you people think of it?

Like I mean, is Saddam gonna agree to his own removal? No. The iraqi people are utterly paranoid of his regime. They would never even say a bad word about Saddam.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure they are as paranoid of him or don't like
him as much as some people may think. I thoroughly
believe that if his people hated him that much that he
would not be in power right now. His bread and butter
to keeping himself in power is his republican guard, but
they have thoughts and feelings to and if their family was
treated so horribly by Saddam, they would take measure
against it. I guess one would have to live there or
visit there to know the truth. All we have to go by
are western news reports, which for the most part
are full of propaganda.

It would be normal for the Iraqi people to feel that the
US is oppressing them because of their living conditions
after the gulf war and for there to be some resentment
because of damage caused during the war. I'm sure
there were a lot of bitter Europeans on Germany several
years after the fact. On the same token, probably a lot
of bitter Germans on the allied inflicted damage.

I often visit http://www.iraqdaily.com There are messageboards
there and news reports...Sometimes its good to see
both sides of the coin.

First off, Ralendil has argued his points that there are as many countries to go to war with, that have done just as bad. Go on try to think of a reason.

-We have no proof.
- SO now We judge by said countries past.
-We don’t have support of the Security Committee.
-We will spend billions in cash, enough to clear many of our debts
-Or study more environmental problems.
-Or cures for diseases.
-We have no reason.
- We weren’t attacked.
-We become the aggressors.
- We will waste American lives and money to become aggressors.

1.) Like I said, we have no proof. We are going to start a war without any reason. Or you could even say we are starting a war because of what we don’t know. Does this sound logical? Many 'suburban moms' feel their child's security is threatened. 'Dubbya will not let this stand! Damn the fool who threatened the Mothers of our nation! What’s that? Iraq didn’t threaten? Then to hell with Iraq!?!? They won’t even let us in their country! So now we blast our way in. mark my words 'dubbya will finish what his father started. (why couldn’t it have been McCain )

2.) Who are we to judge other countries past? If we were so moral, we could certainly pick a bunch of 'evil' countries, who we have proofs on.

3.) You think the U.N. is pointless do you. What about in the cold war, the security council was made up of the world’s leaders. (except China) So when the u.s. put an attack on country, or a war to stop a communist revolution, in front of the U.N. the C.C.C.P. would shoot that idea down. Or to put it plainly, Veto it. making no U.N. support. So here we have to countries with thousands of ICBM's pointed at each other. And we still hold true to not going to war with another country, unless war is declared on us, or to defend other countries. So how is the the U.N pointless? It was more pointless while Russia was vetoing everything we tried, and that was from the start. It less pointless now, than when it was created! Even in Vietnam, LBJ had the courtesy to make up a situation. He knew Americans wouldn’t go to war without a direct provocation, have things changed that much? American ships were supposedly fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin (the resolution).


4\5\6.) We could put the billions of dollars to something like fighting aids, which would save an entire continent from the hell it lives in. Attempt to clear the pollution, which is just as threatening as Iraq. What will BIO weapons matter, when the "World Is Melting". We could put the money in an account that will safely pay off debts on an annual basis. For the millions who buy our bonds.

7.) The only reason we could possibly have is to 'stop Osama Bin Laden' yet with this man’s death, It won’t bring an end to all terrorist threats. While the world would be a better place, without him. Is it enough to waste our men and money?

8\9\10.) And so we become aggressors. Now many more Middle Eastern countries will look at us as an evil tyrant. And might even give rise to more terrorism than if we don’t.

So now how can you say this is better? The way to Freedom? George quickly changed his response from without the support of the Congress, to absolutely with the Support of the congress.
I support America 100%. When the final decision is made, (war looks inevitable) I will abide by that decision. . . And think of a new list to support it, but for now, I can’t see the logic. If Bush would just give us the reasons and facts he says he has. Yet he hides them from the public.

You know. . . now I know why every time I go to war in Civ3 I have to switch from Democracy to another Government

Moderator Action: You newbies have trouble reading?

Be thankful your new to my section, you ever again ignore a posted noticed, you will ALL have a week off.

Use EXSISTING threads on this topic, and be thankful I'm not banning you ALL.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Part my fault here Chris, This thread was originally post in the History forum, where I read just enough of it to see it was current events not history, and moved it here (without a forward). Thus they were not looking at the warning posted in th OT, since it was originally posted in the wrong forum.

It isn't history par see either Lefty, but I think we have more then enough threads on the current situation.

I will relese this thread for now, as it was unintended to break the posted warning, and since I believe the furor has died down, we can get back to normal.

HOWEVER, if I sudenly see several new Iraq/UN threads, that say NOTHING new, the fate of said thread starter will be a nice vacation.