Wow..I have been waiting FOREVER on my order of WMD.

[Peri]

Originally posted by Sh3kel
You can't be everywhere at once, and I'm fairly certain if tomorrow Bush were to declare "we're going into the congo to stop the massacress" a lot of people would blame it into imperialism.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. [/QUOT

Actually if Bush said we are going to get all the evil dictators, most would cheer. People, however, dont like being conned by politicians. Being told that the world is threatened by Iraq and its WMD then finding that these WMD are a little too elusive is rather galling.

 

[elmer fudd]

peri - u seem like a very intelligent serious man capable of great brilliance.



so PLEASE AVOID my threads!

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by Ancient Grudge


how much time? how long shall the iraqi people be under another un elected body of leadership......?

We we are reasonably secure that the Iraqi people will elect someone favorable to the Halliburtons and Betchels of the world.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Akka

Well, people were saying the same when he goes for Irak, did no prevented him to go to.

Freeing iraqi people was a nice side-effect, not the reason of the war. Deal with it.

I wouldn't call it a side-effect. The goal of the administration was removing Saddam. The effects of the achievment of this goal were numerous, and the emancipation of the Iraqi people was one of them. They were all very much intended to happen.

As far as the reason for war, in my opinion, the UN had made it very clear over the years that it was not particularly worried about the plight of Iraqi civilians, so we had to come up with another reason. Maybe it was an attempt to frighten the rest of the world out of it's unwillingness to take action against dangerous regimes.

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by elmer fudd
peri - u seem like a very intelligent serious man capable of great brilliance.



so PLEASE AVOID my threads!

Thankyou I will but my answer is Marvin the Martian and that abominable snowman who wants to hug it and pet it and love it and call things george.

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by eyrei
Maybe it was an attempt to frighten the rest of the world out of it's unwillingness to take action against dangerous regimes.

Maybe it was a lie. And now that we have falsely cried wolf, then the rest of the world will be more wary when the time comes that we cry wolf and there really is a wolf.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by JollyRoger


Maybe it was a lie. And now that we have falsely cried wolf, then the rest of the world will be more wary when the time comes that we cry wolf and there really is a wolf.

I don't discount that possibility, but regardless of the presence of WMD, Saddam needed to be removed for his other crimes. I don't actually expect politicians to tell the truth all the time, and sometimes the ends do justify the means.

Plus, if we remove all the 'wolves', then we won't have to worry about them. It is not as if the US needs the backing of the UN or any other world body to remove regimes we consider to be a threat to international stability. It would be nice to keep the UN around as more than an icon, and the withdrawal of the US from the UN would almost completely remove its ability to take any sort of action in regimes that are hostile to democracy. So we tried everything we could think of (including possibly lying), to get the UN's cooperation.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Originally posted by JollyRoger
Maybe it was a lie. And now that we have falsely cried wolf, then the rest of the world will be more wary when the time comes that we cry wolf and there really is a wolf.

Or maybe not people are dumb very dumb and follow politicans thats why i hate people, people dont learn from mistakes indivduals are alright but put people together they turn very very very thick so basically yes the american public would probably support a war against another country who supposedly had WMD because people as a whole are inherntly stupid not just americans but america is the country that will lead the way

 

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by Akka

The fact you ever trusted him is in itself quite astonishing

"trusted" is perhaps not the best word. I never liked him and I oppose most of what he did prior to 9/11 (Kyoto, strong support for death penalty, Star War, ect).
However, I was rather impressed by the Afghan war (though not by the "nation-building" after). And in the case of Iraq, I was convinced that Iraq did have WMDs, and that inspections were NOT working. Thus, while not liking Bush much and while sure that WMDs and Human Rights were not the only reasons for the war, I felt it was justified and needed.

As far as the reason for war, in my opinion, the UN had made it very clear over the years that it was not particularly worried about the plight of Iraqi civilians, so we had to come up with another reason.

Sorry, but I have trouble believings that anyone in the Bush administration cared about Iraqi civilians before 9/11. Or for that matter, that they care about those Congo, or anywhere else.
Putting a stop to Saddam Hussein's murderous follies was never going to be more than a welcome side-effect.

I'm fairly certain if tomorrow Bush were to declare "we're going into the congo to stop the massacress" a lot of people would blame it into imperialism.

Except that it would be hard for anyone to pretend the Bush administration has hidden reasons for such an intervention.
For Iraq however, there are plenty of very bad reasons why the Bush administration could have wanted the war: Keeping Saudi oil safe, controlling Iraq's, finishing Dady's job, continuing the "war on terror" to the next election, ect.
While I happened to believe that some of those reasons helped explain the Bush administration's push for war, I also believed that WMDs were a sufficiant reason on their own. I'm starting to have doubts...

 

[EdwardTking]

Creating a Democracy in Iraq.


Twelve steps for a 5 year old:


Stage One: Draft a Constitution

If too stupid to draft one; find one on the web; (preferably not the EU or they will likely spend three years renaming the country) and use MS Word to change the names of the country to Iraq and references to God to Allah. Translate into Arabic and Kurdish.


Stage Two: Define Regions, States etc

Obtain a giant map of Iraq and a pen.
Draw lines separating it into regions.


Stage Three: Define Local Government Areas

Obtain a giant map of each region; draw lines dividing it into cities and rural areas.


Stage Four: Define Constituencies

For each city or rural area; draw wards.
Produce millions of copies and pass them out.


Stage Five: Polling Booths

Create a polling booth for each region. If you like, you can co-locate it with a tank so people can find it. This requires just five things: (1) Box for votes; (2) Digital Camera, (3) Pencils, (4) Application Form and (5) Voted 'dd mm yy' rubber stamp with indelible ink pad.


Stage Six: Announce Constituencies

Hand out copies of all the maps.



Stage Seven: Announce Registration Day

This is the day when candidates may register. Advise them that they will each need 100 supporters and a supporter can only sponsor one candidate; and of date of election; maybe 10 days afterwards.


Stage Eight: Draw Up Lists of Candidates

When candidates arrive; check not already date stamped, take name, address, 100 word political statement and photograph; and stamp candidate and all the 100 supporters with the current date.


Stage Nine: Ballot Forms

Produce ballot forms with pictures of candidate and name and political statement.


Stage Ten: Election Date

Accept completed ballot from anyone not stamped 'voted election day' and stamp 'voted election day' on the arm.


Stage Eleven: The Results

Count Votes and Announce Winners


Stage Twelve: And home for Beer

Leave by next helicopter.



Now can President Bush organise this and if so how long?

Hint: consider Florida 2000

 

[elmer fudd]

Originally posted by EdwardTking

Twelve steps for a 5 year old:

Thanks a lot! I think im ready to go take over a country now!

heheheheheheheheehe

 

[Greadius]

A topical nugget of wisdom: Never mistake incompetence for malevolence.

 

[ERIKK]

Originally posted by eyrei
I don't discount that possibility, but regardless of the presence of WMD, Saddam needed to be removed for his other crimes. I don't actually expect politicians to tell the truth all the time, and sometimes the ends do justify the means.

Ok, I can see the point and agree on this.

In this case lets hope they find some reasons to get rid of dictators like Mugabe and all the other ones. There are massacres going on in lot's of other rouge states. I can see that the only way to actually remove parasites like them is to invade the country and take over control (like Iraq).

If you do one, you should do them all (certainly if there are no WMD in Iraq to be found at all)!

But it sure is not the UN way to do things and can set examples for other powerfull nations like China and Russia to do the same with governments they do not like (of any nation)... Therefore I still find it very dangerous (respect a lands souvereignity?)!

Just to be sure: I am not that naive. I do not see the US invade Congo and Zimbabwe and <fill in a rouge state> to set up democracies...

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by ERIKK
Ok, I can see the point and agree on this.

In this case lets hope they find some reasons to get rid of dictators like Mugabe and all the other ones. There are massacres going on in lot's of other rouge states. I can see that the only way to actually remove parasites like them is to invade the country and take over control (like Iraq).

If you do one, you should do them all (certainly if there are no WMD in Iraq to be found at all)!

But it sure is not the UN way to do things and can set examples for other powerfull nations like China and Russia to do the same with governments they do not like (of any nation)... Therefore I still find it very dangerous (respect a lands souvereignity?)!

Just to be sure: I am not that naive. I do not see the US invade Congo and Zimbabwe and <fill in a rouge state> to set up democracies...

I expect that the US administration would like the UN to take the lead if at all possible. I think the reason it is 'not the UN way to do things' is because there is always one or two members that have something to lose if a particular regime is taken down. These members do everything they can to make sure nothing is done.