Why would the UN lie in their rapports from Iraq, saying that there were no nuclear weapons? Answer me on that one...
And then tell me why the US decided to go against that? The UN are objective in their rapports, are they not? You can not possibly say that the US intelligence are more objective in their rapports?
So to answer your question... Yes, we know you lied about your reasons for attacking Iraq.. Yes, the whole world are ashamed of US's dealings. And we have been since Vietnam, sorry to bring that one up, but you asked...
One exception is the Gulf War, where US did a tremendous job and effort to save Quwait. On that occasion, the UN and the rest of the world stood behind the operations... so it's not that every country in the world refuses to take to arms when need be... so you must realize that the UN and the rest of the world, GB and a few other nations aside, saw something wrong with attacking Iraq this time? Can't you see that? Or are US wiser and smarter than the rest of the world combined? Come on, there's a reason US always wants to go to war... it's business, and you know it.
And I hope you know that 9 out of 10 people in GB was against supporting US in the war?
What were they thinking
Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department
-
nitefyre
- Posts: 3528
- Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:29 am
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
The existence of the UN is as a forum for world affairs, much as this forum is one for the affairs of Cantr. Now, if we refused to play Cantr or the Cantr staff refused to operate, there is really no way Cantr can operate. The basis of the UN, like Cantr, is on the member states to agree with what is decided on, and to contribute its end to back it up. The United States has been behind in its debt in the UN, and was shown up by Ted Turner, who helped to pay off what the US promised it would give. If you don't understand the unique opportunity the UN provides, but needs in return; there's no way it can be successful to begin with, much like the League. Fortunately, the US has been blessed with a few insightful presidents, like Wilson and FDR.
Stan, tell me this, if you're some small European country (the US is the world's only superpower, as of now), are you in any situation to stand up to the United States of America? No, for one reason or another.
My point about the Nobel Peace prize was that the organization pointed out to the world, not just a few people, and reported (it might be helpful to keep up with the news, and not only from Fox News or solely conservative sources; get a wide variety: BBC, CNN, etc, as well) that there were no WMDs in Iraq. You have to consider that the NATO (US) were still enforcing the UN resolutions to uphold the No Fly Zones and there had already been a lot of disarmament work up until '98 before the '03 invasion. The fact remains that the UN, which includes the US, did not pass a resolution, and was completely bypassed by the world's big shot, to invade Iraq.
Better reasons for the war existed, and should've been offered instead of the 40 minute to launch a nuclear missile concept. It's probably not a coincidence that since the war, Tennet is out of the CIA, and for the opposite reason, Powell is not our Secretary of State.
Stan, tell me this, if you're some small European country (the US is the world's only superpower, as of now), are you in any situation to stand up to the United States of America? No, for one reason or another.
My point about the Nobel Peace prize was that the organization pointed out to the world, not just a few people, and reported (it might be helpful to keep up with the news, and not only from Fox News or solely conservative sources; get a wide variety: BBC, CNN, etc, as well) that there were no WMDs in Iraq. You have to consider that the NATO (US) were still enforcing the UN resolutions to uphold the No Fly Zones and there had already been a lot of disarmament work up until '98 before the '03 invasion. The fact remains that the UN, which includes the US, did not pass a resolution, and was completely bypassed by the world's big shot, to invade Iraq.
Better reasons for the war existed, and should've been offered instead of the 40 minute to launch a nuclear missile concept. It's probably not a coincidence that since the war, Tennet is out of the CIA, and for the opposite reason, Powell is not our Secretary of State.
Last edited by nitefyre on Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
KiNG KiLL
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:40 am
- Location: Linköping, Sweden
Right... I agree with nitefyre on this...
But I also want to say that it is not the people of USA, nor the nation itself, me and so many others are against. It is this urge, this need for war we oppose. It is the lies and the hypocrisy we refuse to accept.
I just wanted to make that clear to everyone, I don't hate USA or it's people
But I also want to say that it is not the people of USA, nor the nation itself, me and so many others are against. It is this urge, this need for war we oppose. It is the lies and the hypocrisy we refuse to accept.
I just wanted to make that clear to everyone, I don't hate USA or it's people
-
nitefyre
- Posts: 3528
- Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:29 am
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
But I also want to point out the flip side of the coin, which I had earlier. Although the war preparations was poorly thought out both diplomatically and militarily (granted, with 20/20 hindsight [although the initial victory under General Franks was a brilliant 3 week campaign, thereafter you could see why he would want to leave his position]), now that we're in the mess...we have to clean it up. There's not an option for another Vietnam, although this can easily fall into a quagmire (as if it isn't already), and the United States needs to stay the course. If they pull out, all the deaths, destruction, and international turmoil would truly have been pointless.
This isn't to say the US should say, "I told you so" after it's done, if they succeed. At this point, as much as I disagree with the war, it is necessary to secure a safe democracy in Iraq. The international community, which includes the United States, needs to continue to try to repair the damages.
I'm not a Bush-hater, it's ridiculous to say he single handedly screwed everyone over, he didn't. He was provided with the information that there was WMDs and I'm sure he felt a necessary obligation to fight it. However, he was given poor information, and thus, the staff adjustments in the CIA. I also don't blame him for the foul up in Louisiana, nor would I want it all to fall on the scape goat, but the latter did appear just somewhat incompetent and cold about the tragedy. It just happens to be Bush's executive part of the government, which both the CIA and FEMA fall under, so the responsibility ends up on his plate for the bad rap.
It's absolutely ridiculous to blame him only or as a human being, or to say he's stupid. That's a quick way to lose my respect. Another way to do that is by blaming the other party completely (e.g. Pie), or agreeing with anyone who does that, even if they agree with your views. I don't think it's the views, they change, but how you carry yourself when discussing it, that counts. Also, I'm an independent.
This isn't to say the US should say, "I told you so" after it's done, if they succeed. At this point, as much as I disagree with the war, it is necessary to secure a safe democracy in Iraq. The international community, which includes the United States, needs to continue to try to repair the damages.
I'm not a Bush-hater, it's ridiculous to say he single handedly screwed everyone over, he didn't. He was provided with the information that there was WMDs and I'm sure he felt a necessary obligation to fight it. However, he was given poor information, and thus, the staff adjustments in the CIA. I also don't blame him for the foul up in Louisiana, nor would I want it all to fall on the scape goat, but the latter did appear just somewhat incompetent and cold about the tragedy. It just happens to be Bush's executive part of the government, which both the CIA and FEMA fall under, so the responsibility ends up on his plate for the bad rap.
It's absolutely ridiculous to blame him only or as a human being, or to say he's stupid. That's a quick way to lose my respect. Another way to do that is by blaming the other party completely (e.g. Pie), or agreeing with anyone who does that, even if they agree with your views. I don't think it's the views, they change, but how you carry yourself when discussing it, that counts. Also, I'm an independent.
-
Stan
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:29 pm
- Location: KENTUCKY, USA
edited to add: I was agreeing with the factual point Pie was making and not the pointless attack on liberals.
I understand that you don't hate the USA or it's people just because we disagree on this. For the record, when I say America in the context of this discussion I'm referring to official policy.
I do tend to watch Fox News more than the others, but I will watch CNN and MSNBC (that's just because I work for GE, though, I think they suck, frankly).
I'll spend some time in the car looking at the resolution issue to make an educated comment on that. But, I don't understand what you're implying about the Tenet-Powell comment. My opinion is that George Tenet was fired for getting it wrong. Powell may have very well quit because he gave wrong information to the UN, but I don't know that, I haven't really thought much about that aspect, really. But the fact that Tenet is gone is even stronger evidence that Bush wasn't lying. How in the heck can you or anyone be so sure he was lying and if you (or the rest of the world) knew it, why couldn't you convince the rest of the world? Convince me. I'm listening. [edited again, you posted your view on this in the previous post and I understand what you're saying now]
I refuse to brand anyone a liar without proof. To me it is reckless. What if you're wrong?
As for the US being the only superpower. I understand that and what the possible implications are for those that disagree.
But, I also refuse to believe that George Bush would risk American and Iraqi lives over a business venture. That is also unfounded BS and I'd be ashamed to have it roll off my tongue. If you want to believe that, then I can't change that, but it is not an obvious fact and I don't believe you or anyone else can prove it.
I understand that you don't hate the USA or it's people just because we disagree on this. For the record, when I say America in the context of this discussion I'm referring to official policy.
I do tend to watch Fox News more than the others, but I will watch CNN and MSNBC (that's just because I work for GE, though, I think they suck, frankly).
I'll spend some time in the car looking at the resolution issue to make an educated comment on that. But, I don't understand what you're implying about the Tenet-Powell comment. My opinion is that George Tenet was fired for getting it wrong. Powell may have very well quit because he gave wrong information to the UN, but I don't know that, I haven't really thought much about that aspect, really. But the fact that Tenet is gone is even stronger evidence that Bush wasn't lying. How in the heck can you or anyone be so sure he was lying and if you (or the rest of the world) knew it, why couldn't you convince the rest of the world? Convince me. I'm listening. [edited again, you posted your view on this in the previous post and I understand what you're saying now]
I refuse to brand anyone a liar without proof. To me it is reckless. What if you're wrong?
As for the US being the only superpower. I understand that and what the possible implications are for those that disagree.
But, I also refuse to believe that George Bush would risk American and Iraqi lives over a business venture. That is also unfounded BS and I'd be ashamed to have it roll off my tongue. If you want to believe that, then I can't change that, but it is not an obvious fact and I don't believe you or anyone else can prove it.
Stan wrote:I've never said anything worth quoting.
-
Stan
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:29 pm
- Location: KENTUCKY, USA
-
KiNG KiLL
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:40 am
- Location: Linköping, Sweden
but it is not an obvious fact and I don't believe you or anyone else can prove it.
Well, Hans Blix proved it as much as it ever can be proved; there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, nor did he found anything that indicated that there should be. Why can't you accept that as proof? Then when can you ever prove anything in any court?
-
nitefyre
- Posts: 3528
- Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:29 am
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
Well, this will be my last reply since I think we fundamentally agree on the essential point, but also because I don't like political debates all that much, personally. It usually creates a lot of unnecessary bad blood, and the funny thing is, back in the day, I'd be arguing with Pirog and holding the "conservative" ground. I seem to just be the devil's advocate. 
As for the news, fortunately I have a lot of it available, considering my opportune location. Tenet's a pretty clear example of someone just screwing up and I think the right thing happened there. I'm speculating about Powell, I heard a lot of gossip reported on tension between his and the administration's outlook on things.
The question whether Bush can convince the whole world of something or visa verca, someone else convincing the world that Bush and the administration is wrong, is not necessarily based on the truth, but one's political leaning or beliefs. It's very difficult to get everyone agree on something, especially when it is a political matter. It's really a ToK (Theory of Knowledge) question, which I'd prefer to stay out of. Proof does not always equal the truth, and you should never take anything, Hans Blix, Michael Moore, me, or George Bush, just on faith.
Taking things just on faith is another inherent problem with the problems that are creating such a debacle in the Middle-East. Of course, in large part, it is also influenced by other sociocultural aspects. However, the US is made out to be the root of them. I think the US needs to re-assess its traditional way of dealing with the Middle-East. In fact, a lot of the problems we face today come out of how Imperial Britian dealt with the territorial mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.
Like I suggested before, the first step would be to be focusing on alternative-fuels. I'm not saying we went in totally because of oil, but somewhere along the way, someone's going to make a buck on it and we're going to be supporting a lot of bad people to get black gold and cheap. And for the fanatic whose stuck with the short end of the stick? That won't be good at all. It's better off if the point can't be made at all.
From what I heard about Syriana, it touches on a lot of these issues, although I haven't seen it.
As for the news, fortunately I have a lot of it available, considering my opportune location. Tenet's a pretty clear example of someone just screwing up and I think the right thing happened there. I'm speculating about Powell, I heard a lot of gossip reported on tension between his and the administration's outlook on things.
The question whether Bush can convince the whole world of something or visa verca, someone else convincing the world that Bush and the administration is wrong, is not necessarily based on the truth, but one's political leaning or beliefs. It's very difficult to get everyone agree on something, especially when it is a political matter. It's really a ToK (Theory of Knowledge) question, which I'd prefer to stay out of. Proof does not always equal the truth, and you should never take anything, Hans Blix, Michael Moore, me, or George Bush, just on faith.
Taking things just on faith is another inherent problem with the problems that are creating such a debacle in the Middle-East. Of course, in large part, it is also influenced by other sociocultural aspects. However, the US is made out to be the root of them. I think the US needs to re-assess its traditional way of dealing with the Middle-East. In fact, a lot of the problems we face today come out of how Imperial Britian dealt with the territorial mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.
Like I suggested before, the first step would be to be focusing on alternative-fuels. I'm not saying we went in totally because of oil, but somewhere along the way, someone's going to make a buck on it and we're going to be supporting a lot of bad people to get black gold and cheap. And for the fanatic whose stuck with the short end of the stick? That won't be good at all. It's better off if the point can't be made at all.
From what I heard about Syriana, it touches on a lot of these issues, although I haven't seen it.
-
Nixit
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:06 pm
- Location: Your imagination...
KiNG KiLL wrote:but it is not an obvious fact and I don't believe you or anyone else can prove it.
Well, Hans Blix proved it as much as it ever can be proved; there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, nor did he found anything that indicated that there should be. Why can't you accept that as proof? Then when can you ever prove anything in any court?
And that doesn't mean he was lying, just got misinformation, as Stan had stated I believe.
Just because you're older, smarter, stronger, more talented... doesn't mean you're BETTER.
-
Pie
- Posts: 3256
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 3:30 am
- Location: the headquarters of P.I.E.
Ehem....
If Bush really was lying, Why didn't anyone els know about it?
IF, and i quote
If that is true, then WHY DIDN'T ANYONE ELS KNOW?!?!?!
I mean, SHURE america is arguably the biggest and best country in the world, But England, France, Heck, maby even sweeden had diplomats in Iraqu. So if there was ABSOLUTLY NO INDICATION that there was a few WOMD in Iraqu, Then why didn't they know?
Now, maby I'm rong, and Jolly old England didn't do a thing about intelegance in Iraqu,and just waltzed in there with nothing but BUSHES WORDS to give them any idea of whats happening. But wouldn't that be cindof... Stupid?
Really, Why didn't any other country know that there was no WOMD in iraqu? Maby JUST MABY THERE WAS A WOMD IN IRAQU, And we just don't know it.
Hey, cindof makes sence.
If Bush really was lying, Why didn't anyone els know about it?
IF, and i quote
nor did he found anything that indicated that there should be.
If that is true, then WHY DIDN'T ANYONE ELS KNOW?!?!?!
I mean, SHURE america is arguably the biggest and best country in the world, But England, France, Heck, maby even sweeden had diplomats in Iraqu. So if there was ABSOLUTLY NO INDICATION that there was a few WOMD in Iraqu, Then why didn't they know?
Now, maby I'm rong, and Jolly old England didn't do a thing about intelegance in Iraqu,and just waltzed in there with nothing but BUSHES WORDS to give them any idea of whats happening. But wouldn't that be cindof... Stupid?
Really, Why didn't any other country know that there was no WOMD in iraqu? Maby JUST MABY THERE WAS A WOMD IN IRAQU, And we just don't know it.
Hey, cindof makes sence.
Pnumerical Intuitiong Engyn
Paranormal Investigation Exorsism
Porcupine Interspecies Extra_poison
Pick In Enter
... The headquarters of P.I.E.!!!
Paranormal Investigation Exorsism
Porcupine Interspecies Extra_poison
Pick In Enter
... The headquarters of P.I.E.!!!
-
west
- Posts: 4649
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:23 pm
The administration WANTED to invade Iraq. There's strong evidence that they accepted information from a source they knew wasn't credible, looked at evidence with a priori assumptions that what they wanted to see was what they were seeing, and even Colin Powell has stated that HE and the CIA and the FBI knew that the evidence that Bush had Powell present before the UN wasn't credible.
And Pie, people HAVE been opposed to this from the start, HAVE pointed out that there was no real evidence. It just didn't matter.
And Pie, people HAVE been opposed to this from the start, HAVE pointed out that there was no real evidence. It just didn't matter.
I'm not dead; I'm dormant.
-
formerly known as hf
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:58 pm
- Location: UK
I couldn't agree more. It needed to be said - thankyou for saying it.Stan wrote:Anyway, good discussion...let's play Cantr!
I've come to loath discussions about the Iraq war, as everyone by now knows all the other arguments. I vowed never again to get involved, yet, here I am, getting involved again...
Whoever you vote for.
The government wins.
The government wins.
-
Stan
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:29 pm
- Location: KENTUCKY, USA
-
Savanik
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:53 am
- Location: Missouri, USA
What I want to know is, why is everyone talking back and forth about whether or not Bush knew, and ignoring things that we already know to be 100% true?
Like, I don't know, members of the U.N. being bribed by Sadaam Hussein to keep the United States from invading his country with the money he was supposed to be buying food for his people with?
I mean, did people just forget about it? Is it not a 'big deal' that the French president took money from a war criminal? That members of the U.N. security council are being paid off? Is this 'business as usual'? Is this what we should come to expect in the future from an organization 'to promote respect for human rights, protect the environment, fight disease and reduce poverty'?
Sav
Like, I don't know, members of the U.N. being bribed by Sadaam Hussein to keep the United States from invading his country with the money he was supposed to be buying food for his people with?
I mean, did people just forget about it? Is it not a 'big deal' that the French president took money from a war criminal? That members of the U.N. security council are being paid off? Is this 'business as usual'? Is this what we should come to expect in the future from an organization 'to promote respect for human rights, protect the environment, fight disease and reduce poverty'?
Sav
Humility is one of my greatest virtues.
Return to “Non-Cantr-Related Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest