Huh?
camO_o
Join Date: 2004-04-19 Member: 28028Members
Join Date: 2004-04-19 Member: 28028Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">bush ahead in polls. far ahead.</div> <a href='http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/ar...,692562,00.html</a>
i didn't expect kerry to be in the lead, but a 11% head start by bush was beyond what i expected.
what's most amazing about this, is the fact that so many people are in agreement with Bush about the war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq: Half (50%) of those surveyed approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 46% disapprove. In last week’s TIME poll, 48% approved of the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq and 48% disapproved.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
did everyone manage to somehow forget that the administration <i>lied</i> to us about a <b>war</b>? why are we approving another four years for someone who has clearly, without a doubt, mislead an entire country?
i didn't expect kerry to be in the lead, but a 11% head start by bush was beyond what i expected.
what's most amazing about this, is the fact that so many people are in agreement with Bush about the war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq: Half (50%) of those surveyed approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 46% disapprove. In last week’s TIME poll, 48% approved of the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq and 48% disapproved.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
did everyone manage to somehow forget that the administration <i>lied</i> to us about a <b>war</b>? why are we approving another four years for someone who has clearly, without a doubt, mislead an entire country?
Comments
Again if it is right I would give him a 5-8% boost, as these things usually go up after conventions, especially the well organized media manipulating master piece that was the RNC. They are masters at what they do, that’s why I love them
Either that or the polls are flawed....which is a distinct, if improbable, possibility.
Seriously though, Bush is in power, and the president running for re-election always has an edge in the voting around 5-10% of the votes.
I'm hovering the fence with my vote. One one hand, I hate how Bush screwed up the UN and our relations with nations, and on the other, I have heard Kerry's reputation for saying one thing and doing another (8 contrasts total).
I guess it is the lesser of two evils.
Please learn what a lie, and a mistake is.
1.) Saddam had WMD's confirmed before and after the Persian Gulf war.
2.) Saddam consistently violated U.N. Sanctions and treaties he'd signed to.
3.) He threw U.N. Inspectors out several times.
4.) When he did let them in to check out sites, they were always delayed for hours at a time.
Judging from these things, Saddam never made clear what he did with his weapons. I find it highly unlikely that he was planning a surprise for the world: "Look, I destroyed my WMD's just for you!! Let's all have cake. No, don't worry, it's not glowing, it's just a new frosting. *wink*"
Also, most intelligence was <i>still</i> pointing to WMD's still existing in Iraq. Most people still, in the back of their minds, believe that something happened to the WMD's, and not their destruction either.
Actually, it's in vogue to vote for Kerry, but the reality is that most mature people don't vote for who's in vogue. Most celebs, most musicians, etc, are all voting for Kerry. [sarcasm]Of course, we all know that celebrities and musicians are always right about who to vote for, because they always know more than the common man about the real issues going on.[/sarcasm]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hhhm. Yes, he did. He Insisted in the fact that Iraq is in possesion of nuclear weapons and used the fear of such devices to gain enough support to start a war.
It is more than just a "mistake" to start war on unconfirmed information.
He insisted on<i> knowing</i>, that Iraq had nukes. He did not, so even if he did not lie intentionally it still is a lie.
Besides, making a "mistake" that leads his country into war is at least as bad as leading the country to war by lying to its people.
What is a more disqualifying trait on a nations leader?
Dishonsty or inompetence? I'm not shure about that yet...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, most intelligence was still pointing to WMD's still existing in Iraq. Most people still, in the back of their minds, believe that something happened to the WMD's, and not their destruction either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ohh please. Don't come up with US intelligence... Your so called Intelligence blatantly ignored every warning and hint for the assault on the WTC, of witch there were plenty.
Also, your intelligences accurracy is world famous. Especially when picking targets for bombardment. Once you managed to bomb a building with suspected Al Quaeda activists while that building actually was an UN office....
Maybe your Intelligence services should take some lessons from Mossad. When they blow up a car then there actually <i>is</i> a terrorist in in.
Let me outline two very important facts for you:
1.) Saddam Hussein had stockpiled, and used in combat, Chemical and Biological weapons.
2.) There had been no confirmation that these weapons had been destroyed; in fact, most intelligence reports were saying that they still existed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To lie you must have intent to lie. See signature below.
Excuse me. he was of course referring to Weapons of mass destructions".
How could I have mixed that up....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is common knowledge that the Israeli preemptive airstrike on Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 effectively halted their actual ability to gain nukes<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aren't you mixing up Iraq with <i>Iran</i>? I know that Israel destroyed <i>Irans </i>nuclear capacity in 1981 but I can not recall an preemtive strike on Iraq.
If there was one, feel free to give me some info I am eager to learn, unless not, I suggest<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Get your facts straight.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and don't rely on...common knowledge.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1.) Saddam Hussein had stockpiled, and used in combat, Chemical and Biological weapons.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, do you have proof? It is proven fact that he used Chemical agents against Iran and against rebellious tribes.
That was stuff like sarin which is easy to produce. But what about your bio weapons? Where are they? And more important, where are they produced?
Developing bioagents is very difficult. You need large laboratories and much money. Iraq does not have both of that because the former was not found yet and the latter was short because of the embargo. The country was barely able to keep the electricity running and prevent the population from starving (besides buying new cars for Saddam) Where do you thing the bioweapons come from? Santa Clause?
Ohh. I forgot, there were found large amounts of mustard gas which is harmful to eyes and lungs on exposal and may cause fatal injury if not treated properly.
Its intresting however that this agent is widely used to clean Oil refining equipment.
What a surprise....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There had been no confirmation that these weapons had been destroyed;
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was no damn confirmation they <i>EXISTED</i> in the first place. Your Troops were there several month and searched for such devices after the and during the war, and you could not find anything!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
<span style='color:orange'>Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. </span>
To lie you must have intent to lie. See signature below.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look at the highlighted line. That is what the whole world thinks amout the WMD debate.
Thank you for googling up the definition, you spared me some time on that.
If there was one, feel free to give me some info I am eager to learn, unless not, I suggest[QUOTE]Get your facts straight <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/3014623.stm</a>
Yea...you were dead...off.
Please learn what a lie, and a mistake is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a lie is the telling an untruth with the knowledge that your facts are wrong. a mistake would be telling a lie. please learn a little something about what actually happened before posting one liners to make yourself appear somewhat intelligent. even if this was an honest mistake, are you seriously going to reelect someone capable of making such enormous blunders?
the work of the U.N. inspectors was never complete. the chief inspector himself claimed that there were no WMD to be found. this isn't something you pull out of your **** when the world's most powerful country is obviously pressuring you to find WMDs or what not.
bush came into office with the knowledge that he would be making war with Iraq, one way or another.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush went to war on the fact that Iraq had Chemical/Biological weapons, not nuclear weapons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and we've just found tons of those in iraq, have we not?
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/</a>
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html</a>
Bush never did lie. We may not have found actual usuable biological/chemical weapons, but they were there. At one point or another, Saddam WAS making them. Obviously, he hid them somewhere, its the only logical thing to do.
How do we know he had them? Twist: <b>We gave them to him back in the eighties.</b>
Loved that link reasa - particularily these parts
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Israelis have bombed a <b>French-built nuclear plant</b> near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel
French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac cultivated France's special relationship with Iraq during the 1970s to maintain an influence in a region dominated by Anglo-Saxons and boost trade links with the oil-rich nation.
He led the universal condemnation of Israel's attack on Osirak.
Then, 22 years later - as French president - Mr Chirac was vehemently against the USA and Britain going to war with Iraq over the issue of weapons of mass destruction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You gotta admire the man's consistency - Chirac has been supporting and defending the nuclear ambitions of rogue states since the 70's. How he manages to work that in with his "moral high ground against unilateral US aggression" is anyones guess.
You gotta admire the man's consistency - Chirac has been supporting and defending the nuclear ambitions of rogue states since the 70's. How he manages to work that in with his "moral high ground against unilateral US aggression" is anyones guess. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, thanks, the Google toolbar is my best friend on these forums. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It is interesting to see how France is involved in these things, such as abusing the oil for food program. Funny how you never hear anything about it on the news, even FOX. I don't want to yell "liberal media" but it is interesting. I'm sure most people think France has nothing to do with Iraq in anyway, and I can see how they could draw that conclusion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Reasa and illuminex are dishing out large servings of ownage plates for free.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know about illuminex but I think I'm going to start charging. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit: Missed this: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush never did lie. We may not have found actual usuable biological/chemical weapons, but they were there. At one point or another, Saddam WAS making them. Obviously, he hid them somewhere, its the only logical thing to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Think Syria....
To sum it up: the Kerry campaign is a tremendous disappointment to me. It seems that he's just unable to focus on the issues that matter. His speeches are worse than Bush's. If he's lagging in the polls, he damn well deserves it. He needs to get his act together.
I'll take a stab at it. Why should the US and its favorite allies be the only ones trusted with nukes? I mean, acording to the US they're the only trust worthy ones, but thats hardly an objective opinion is it?
The reasoning does make sense in its own sort of way.
As for the poll, I'm a little surprised, but not much. No matter which of the two major candidates gets voted in the american people are still royally ****ed. They are both bigots (stances on homosexual marriage), and neither has any respect for the constitution (both supported the USAPATRIOT act). IMO bush is worse, since he seems to have no concept of how things work in the real world ("You're either with us or against us", "I think moral clarity is important... this is evil versus good"). Thats why I support not voting, because you're ****ed anyway, why waste your time voting? Third parties certainly don't have a chance in hell thanks to the electoral system, they havent for about 150 years, and in this election it is even more true because of the "Third party votes won it for bush last time, so lets all vote Dem" mentality. So to the liberals out there who want to see a REAL candidate (as opposed to the puppets we have now) get into office: Don't vote! Seriously, if enough liberals don't bother to vote, the Democratic party is going to try to find out why, and then they'll learn that no one voted because they don't like the system, the Democrats might run on a platform of changing the system (IRV and preferential voting would be nice), and then after that one term we can elect who we really want in office. Hey, it could work, it has at least as much chance of working as trying to break enough people out of the "two party" voting mentality.
To sum it up: the Kerry campaign is a tremendous disappointment to me. It seems that he's just unable to focus on the issues that matter. His speeches are worse than Bush's. If he's lagging in the polls, he damn well deserves it. He needs to get his act together. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's times like these when I wish we had three parties instead of two. That way they could be cyclic and you could go with conservative, liberal or centrist whenever you want and have a chance at having your candidate win.
I think it's just that everybody thinks "voting a 3rd party is throwing your vote away!"...but it's not, since you're not not voting - if everyone did it this way, then there'd be a significant number of 3rd party voters. It's too bad Kerry is hypocritically bad and Bush is just plain terrible.
I don't know who I should vote for, I'm just going to write "Bob McYomomma" on the ballot.
Aside from that, remember the thing about polls...
<i>The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. </i>
...since a ~0.000004966% population sample is <i>incredibly</i> accurate (granted that's not even close to the real number of voters, which would really be about a .00014% sample).
I'll take a stab at it. Why should the US and its favorite allies be the only ones trusted with nukes? I mean, acording to the US they're the only trust worthy ones, but thats hardly an objective opinion is it?
The reasoning does make sense in its own sort of way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? Because we are on top. We invented nuclear weapons first. We have overwhelming conventional military might, and the only real threat to that is unconventional weapons. Plus our society is superior to the likes of Saddam Hussein's, we are NOT nuts enough to just nuke blindly. Saddam definately would have been - during the first Iraq war, rather than waste scuds on American forces slaughtering Iraqi troops, Saddam flailed wildly against Israel - thats not sane.
You really have to stop viewing the world as some sort global sandbox in which the US is hogging all the spades - this is deadly serious. Play fair has NEVER EVER been how any nation operates. Why dont you argue that the Israeli's should give the palestinians some tanks just to make things fair? Why dont you support US weapons sales to third world countries if you are all for evening the conflict? How uncool could you get in World War Two - the Americans should have given the Japanese the bomb so it wasnt all one way traffic on the nuclear front.
This is like criminals complaining how unfair it is that the police get their guns supplied by the state. No fair, they claim, we dont have stations nationwide, we dont have our own "report a police officer" hotline. We dont have SMG's and the option to call in special squads - its just not balanced. This kind of thinking is the child of the relativist movement - that you just cant tell whose right and whose wrong in this world. And you all know my opinion of the relativist movement, but fortunately the US government (and specifically Bush) ignores it as well.
Calling a group of nations an "Axis of Evil" may not be the most brightess thing to do politically, but surely no one is going to argue that he's wrong? I seem to remember the fuss when Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire, and good lord didnt he cop it - but he was right.
Damn right its not balanced, and in the event that the US has nothing to rely on but its previous conduct in world matter, then it wont matter whether they were angels or satan's cabana boys, they will get smashed. Do you realise what the moral high ground is actually worth in international politics?
I'll take a stab at it. Why should the US and its favorite allies be the only ones trusted with nukes? I mean, acording to the US they're the only trust worthy ones, but thats hardly an objective opinion is it?
The reasoning does make sense in its own sort of way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? Because we are on top. We invented nuclear weapons first. We have overwhelming conventional military might, and the only real threat to that is unconventional weapons. Plus our society is superior to the likes of Saddam Hussein's, we are NOT nuts enough to just nuke blindly. Saddam definately would have been - during the first Iraq war, rather than waste scuds on American forces slaughtering Iraqi troops, Saddam flailed wildly against Israel - thats not sane.
You really have to stop viewing the world as some sort global sandbox in which the US is hogging all the spades - this is deadly serious. Play fair has NEVER EVER been how any nation operates. Why dont you argue that the Israeli's should give the palestinians some tanks just to make things fair? Why dont you support US weapons sales to third world countries if you are all for evening the conflict? How uncool could you get in World War Two - the Americans should have given the Japanese the bomb so it wasnt all one way traffic on the nuclear front.
This is like criminals complaining how unfair it is that the police get their guns supplied by the state. No fair, they claim, we dont have stations nationwide, we dont have our own "report a police officer" hotline. We dont have SMG's and the option to call in special squads - its just not balanced. This kind of thinking is the child of the relativist movement - that you just cant tell whose right and whose wrong in this world. And you all know my opinion of the relativist movement, but fortunately the US government (and specifically Bush) ignores it as well.
Calling a group of nations an "Axis of Evil" may not be the most brightess thing to do politically, but surely no one is going to argue that he's wrong? I seem to remember the fuss when Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire, and good lord didnt he cop it - but he was right.
Damn right its not balanced, and in the event that the US has nothing to rely on but its previous conduct in world matter, then it wont matter whether they were angels or satan's cabana boys, they will get smashed. Do you realise what the moral high ground is actually worth in international politics? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said I agree with the position. Only that it does make sense... sorta...
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/</a>
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
you can do better then that. a mobile lab "capable" of producing chemical weapons, and "may" have found plutonium. :|...
that's not WMD, that's like the shadow of a tree that you thought was a monster.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
...since a ~0.000004966% population sample is incredibly accurate (granted that's not even close to the real number of voters, which would really be about a .00014% sample).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it's fairly accurate. most polls are done with only a thousand + people. usually, they're pretty on the target.
I'll take a stab at it. Why should the US and its favorite allies be the only ones trusted with nukes? I mean, acording to the US they're the only trust worthy ones, but thats hardly an objective opinion is it?
The reasoning does make sense in its own sort of way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? Because we are on top. We invented nuclear weapons first. We have overwhelming conventional military might, and the only real threat to that is unconventional weapons. Plus our society is superior to the likes of Saddam Hussein's, we are NOT nuts enough to just nuke blindly. Saddam definately would have been - during the first Iraq war, rather than waste scuds on American forces slaughtering Iraqi troops, Saddam flailed wildly against Israel - thats not sane.
You really have to stop viewing the world as some sort global sandbox in which the US is hogging all the spades - this is deadly serious. Play fair has NEVER EVER been how any nation operates. Why dont you argue that the Israeli's should give the palestinians some tanks just to make things fair? Why dont you support US weapons sales to third world countries if you are all for evening the conflict? How uncool could you get in World War Two - the Americans should have given the Japanese the bomb so it wasnt all one way traffic on the nuclear front.
This is like criminals complaining how unfair it is that the police get their guns supplied by the state. No fair, they claim, we dont have stations nationwide, we dont have our own "report a police officer" hotline. We dont have SMG's and the option to call in special squads - its just not balanced. This kind of thinking is the child of the relativist movement - that you just cant tell whose right and whose wrong in this world. And you all know my opinion of the relativist movement, but fortunately the US government (and specifically Bush) ignores it as well.
Calling a group of nations an "Axis of Evil" may not be the most brightess thing to do politically, but surely no one is going to argue that he's wrong? I seem to remember the fuss when Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire, and good lord didnt he cop it - but he was right.
Damn right its not balanced, and in the event that the US has nothing to rely on but its previous conduct in world matter, then it wont matter whether they were angels or satan's cabana boys, they will get smashed. Do you realise what the moral high ground is actually worth in international politics? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hitler's Germany almost discovered them first, if it weren't for rampant discrimination policies, lack of proper funding and lack of specific materials, London might not exit today. That doesn't mean Germany should just be handed nukes for doing a lot of the work.
If you can police the distribution of the most powerful weapon known to man, you should probably police it...it just makes sense.
Saddam targeted Israel in an attempt to get them to join the war, at which point the Saudis would have had the Americans leave and then there'd be a big Middle East brawl. It wasn't just senseless "Hey, why not shoot over there for the hell of it!" stuff. It was just a way to try and make the US/UN leave.
I'm thinking a thread should be around to discuss the world's politics if no world superpower existed. As it stands, there's very few wars because the UN will step in and stop them. Imagine if the US was maybe, 3 big countries instead. Then imagine how world politics would develop from 1800 on (say, the South win the Civil War, and Mexicans get the West US (and then gain independence, or something).
...The funny thing about 'Axis of Evil's and 'Evil Empire's is that the other side thinks the same way. Now, in both cases, America is the Evil imperialist empire, out to take over the world and dominate economies around the globe and such. That doesn't mean they're right, or we're right. It means that politicians shouldn't try to be black and white to lure the populace into supporting inane ideas.
There's also this WMD stuff. Sure, we knew he had them (...Thanks Iraq/Iran conflict...). When the war was starting, I remember it being about how Saddam had links with Al Quaeda and how he was harboring terrorists, not about how he was going to nuke us June 11th and then gas Isreal or anything like that. Somehow Bush's war against terror has turned into a war for 'Iraqi Freedom' which is just some winding path that just doesn't fit for me unless I've just puffed up on lots of drugs.
WTC->Afghanistan led by AQ-> Saddam links to AQ -> Saddam has WMDs -> Let's free Iraq! <span style='font-size:4pt;line-height:100%'>(and steal their oil...)</span>
...uhh, what?
Aside from Bush's speech...problems, he was fine up until the whole "Our Economy is fine" (when it's obviously not all that great, but that's not entirely his fault) and his Iraq stuff. Among some things that specifically matter to me and none of you would really care about because it has to do with my Mom's employment (and her budget and expected Employees).
Now, let's all remember this was about a terribly sampled poll and not actual numbers. A .00005% representation is terrible. You can tell the numbers are off by themselves, since: 926 voters of 1316 people is ~70% voter turn out. If you want to tell me that the US has that high of a voter turn out, you're not living in the same century as me.
[edit: forgot a /size tag....woot for me.]
If you can police the distribution of the most powerful weapon known to man, you should probably police it...it just makes sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying that first in first served should be the rule of law. My point was basically this "Here is why the US + allies have them, and the world does not. Here is why I dont think the rest of the world should have them"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saddam targeted Israel in an attempt to get them to join the war, at which point the Saudis would have had the Americans leave and then there'd be a big Middle East brawl. It wasn't just senseless "Hey, why not shoot over there for the hell of it!" stuff. It was just a way to try and make the US/UN leave.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Point taken. I still think he was nuts, but obviously I can recognise now that there was method behind his madness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...The funny thing about 'Axis of Evil's and 'Evil Empire's is that the other side thinks the same way. Now, in both cases, America is the Evil imperialist empire, out to take over the world and dominate economies around the globe and such. That doesn't mean they're right, or we're right. It means that politicians shouldn't try to be black and white to lure the populace into supporting inane ideas.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And only one side can be right. Things are never black and white, the US has done some reprehensible things, but the Axis of Evil has made a habit of it, seemingly vying with eachother to outdo themselves in all kinds of oppression and viciousness. When GWB lays it down, flat out, that he thinks their country is evil - he is not glossing over everything they've ever done right. He is just pointing out that in this world, they are a force for evil, they stand for what we wish to destroy. Calling Nth Korea, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Iran evil is not inane - its accurate. Just because labelling your nme evil doesnt automatically make it so does NOT mean that they obviously arent. Reagan called USSR evil, and he made the right call.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There's also this WMD stuff. Sure, we knew he had them (...Thanks Iraq/Iran conflict...). When the war was starting, I remember it being about how Saddam had links with Al Quaeda and how he was harboring terrorists, not about how he was going to nuke us June 11th and then gas Isreal or anything like that. Somehow Bush's war against terror has turned into a war for 'Iraqi Freedom' which is just some winding path that just doesn't fit for me unless I've just puffed up on lots of drugs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has not been a problem for me. I never cared about WMD, I believed the US had a responsibility for removing Saddam WMD or not. Given that smashing Saddam and installing a decent government was obviously going to ensure that he didnt have WMD - it was all win win win for me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WTC->Afghanistan led by AQ-> Saddam links to AQ -> Saddam has WMDs -> Let's free Iraq! [SIZE=-3](and steal their oil...)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stealing oil nothing. The entire Iraqi economy is based around oil - if anyone honestly believes the US are just helping themselves to it, raise your hand so I can laugh at you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->. The oil is going to the Iraqi's, and then its sold to the Americans/world.
That is kind of weird considering the USA are the only nation in history that actually deployed nukes and did so on civilian targets. (yes, there were military facilities nearby... we know...)
Also, you use ammunitions consitent of <i>depleted uranium</i> and thus spreading your nuclear wastes all over the entire country. Guess what a "dirty bomb" is.
<i>Note: Do not start discussions about the harmlessness of depleded uranium slugs. I know they are no mininukes, I know its depleted. Yet its still emitting harmfull radiation. What do you think a "dirty bomb" is?</i>
On a sidenote:
those words as in the highlighted line have a somewhat....bad taste in my ears. Also, their inferior socitey was good enough for your government to support as long as it fought Iran.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you can do better then that. a mobile lab "capable" of producing chemical weapons, and "may" have found plutonium. :|...
that's not WMD, that's like the shadow of a tree that you thought was a monster.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes definately. I tell you about this from the perspective of a foreing nation.
In Germany (as in most other european nations) we have quite a variety of sources to gather information. Besides various newspapers and magazines, there are 4 German or European news-only channels accompanied by the US channels CNN an NBC.
We have many reports on foreing affairs and gain much info about whats going on in the world, exceeding the usual reporting of crisis and havoc. (yet, bad news is good new still has credit)
These "finds" of forbidden material and about some "high tech" mobile labs that did occur ohh so suddenly did not get much attention here compared to the US media. It was mentioned, but the "quantities" and the "possibilities" did not really convince anybody, but did only look as an excuse and the desperate struggle to find <i>anything</i>, as long as its dangerous. Or evil.
There never was hard evidence beforehand and yet there is still no hard evidence, as long as they <i>do not find an actual weapon.</i>
Look at the dates. These were from April of <i>last year</i>. Don't you have anything more up to date? I mean compared to the fact that both the Washington Post and the New York Times have admitted one sided jornalism and misleading information regarding the WMD debate?
From one of your articles:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Last week, troops from the 101st Airborne found a stash of chemicals, which was investigated as possible nerve agents, but the material turned out to be pesticides, Freakly said. The United States will further examine the latest find, he said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The first few month your troops were searchig for any possibility to show off how evil Iraq is. A military morgue, where iraqi soldiers were prepared for their transport to their families became a stockpile of possibly political enemies murdered by Saddam.
Agricultural equipment was identified as "possible" device to deploy harmful chemical aerosols.
Also, the constant protests of the UN inspectors that only US personnel was involved did not help to make these reports sem more reliable.
Also, If your intel was so sure about the existence and whereabouts of WMD, why did you find nothing but some chemicals and "materials that possibly might be plutonium"?.
That is not what Bush was talking about before the war.
Also, those words as in the highlighted line have a somewhat....bad taste in my ears.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Launching nukes to force a surrender on Japan is not madness - that is the cold military mind. If you think that the Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein's direct command would make better decisions than western military leaders - please let me know, and keep it short so I can put it in my sig <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The highlighted line should not leave a bad sound in your ears - if you cant detect the infinite superiority of civilised Western free democracies over brutal dictatorships, then this arguement is doomed from the outset.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Japan <i>was</i> defeated long before the bombs. It was incapable of sustaining the war any further. There were indeed subtle approaches to the US that implied a unconditional surrender was possible. However, the Japanese officials would have never openly approve to that. It was impossible to accept the defeat. There were plans and secret meetings to achieve the possibilites of surrender for Japan. They <i>tried</i> to surrender. (sounds wierd yes, but...hey who really understands the japanese anyway)
The bombs were deployed because the were available. They were built, they were expensive, and most notably, they were a demonstration of power.
They were not deployed out of nessesity, but out of retaliation and to show the world the US capabilities. If Germany had not surrendered by then, the second bomb would have been thrown on Berlin. regardless of germany being unable to defend anymore or not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The highlighted line should not leave a bad sound in your ears - if you cant detect the infinite superiority of civilised Western free democracies over brutal dictatorships, then this arguement is doomed from the outset.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, thats why your free democracy tortures iraqi POWs and keeps taliban prisoners in arrest without formal charges or trials. Very civilised indeed. I see my errors and shall argue no more.
The bombs were deployed because the were available. They were built, they were expensive, and most notably, they were a demonstration of power.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Japan was not willing to surrender by any accounts, their offensive capabilities were destroyed for sure, but leave her alone long enough to lick her wounds and you would have another problem on your hands. Why should we even acknowledge some subtle "maybe we'll surrender *wink wink* just don't make us tell anybody" Besides what the Japanese government did and what the Japanese military did are two completely different things.
What should we have done "oh well we did a pretty good job, I'm sure they learned their lesson" and just forget about them? No.
We had two options, invade mainland Japan undoubtedly costing hundreds of thousands of American lives (the plans had already been drawn up) or use our newest weapon in the arsenal and end it quickly. However the fact that it intimated the Soviets didn't hurt ether. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
* With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area.
* An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
* The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway.
* Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger.
Note: That is speculation. This may or may not be the reason we aren't nuking people left and right. That and MAD. Seeing the atom bomb in action was certainly educational at any rate.
* The bomb's use impressed the Soviet Union and halted the war quickly enough that the USSR did not demand joint occupation of Japan.
(We weren't too fond of communism back then, and the USSR had a mean streak of "liberating" countries, and then turning them into little sattelite countries.)
<a href='http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/trinity/supplement/procon.html' target='_blank'>Here</a>
Yes, I know there is a CON part on the website too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Guess they didn't surrender quick enough.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wouldn't be much of an "unconditional surrender" if the Japanese wanted a say in it. ...It would defeat the purpose.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--># A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speculation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...So?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The world wasn't very concerned that much about civilian casualties. I mean, hundreds of thousands died in the fire bombing of Japan, only tens of thousands in Iraq. Go complain about WWII, get of Iraqi Freedom's case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Being the loser of a war sucks. You tend to get the crap end of sticks.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speculation.
ANYWHO
I think the reason Bush is ahead in the polls is because of the RNC. Politicians tend to get jumps after their conventions. Yeah, I know Kerry didn't get one. Maybe it was because he came off as "Vote for me as I fought in Vietnam." Talk about issues, people, issues. Come on now...