U.N. Passes Resolution To Support U.S. in Iraq

[Justice 0]

 

So where are those WMDs again?

6 months and they still haven't found any WMD

We've only been searching for three with a team of about 1500, and Iraq is the size of California not to mention how massive the ammo dumps are.

 

or Bin Laden

 

And he effectively can't do anything to the US anymore since we are constantly tracking him down and we've torn out the infrastructure in his terror network.

 

or Saddam

 

And Saddam lacks any power to do anything anymore either. He's powerless to do anything to stop us at this point because all his power came from the government we toppled.

 

Your point on these three?

[Guest croweater]

Just bringing you back to the topic for a second.

I'm glad that the UN decided to help out in maintaining Iraq. It is the right thing for them to do regardless of what their previous relations with the US.

However, I have to say that I would have liked to see the UN pull down the collective pants and say "Maybe we'll help you out Bush..... as long as your willing to take some snaussage"

 

US got themselves into one hell of a mess with the whole situation. The argument of "you can't prove they're not there" is completely invalid, because I can't prove that there isn't stores of anthrax in Antarctica, so that means I believe they should be there.?

 

The right wingers of the US have been completely sodomised by their government and are looking for more. They've been lied to and fucked out of copious amounts of money, they've gone against their own democratic attitudes and now the government's got nothing to show for it except for emptying pockets.

Do you not understand that many people from YOUR country have DIED because of the War in Iraq........ and you've got nothing to show for it. You got mad and you got paranoid and you rushed into a war that was not necessary. You were told by the UN, the peace keeping force of the world, not to enter Iraq, that things were getting taken care of (which they were. As long as the UN inspectors were around Iraq wasn't gonna do anything. Hell keep them there for 100 years, they don't cost as much as a war and they were keeping the peace), but you went ahead and did it anyway.

 

It seems to me that the right side of this board are only believing what they want to believe and are in an ignorant dilusion about the war.

[Red Baron 0]

Just bringing you back to the topic for a second.

I'm glad that the UN decided to help out in maintaining Iraq. It is the right thing for them to do regardless of what their previous relations with the US.

However, I have to say that I would have liked to see the UN pull down the collective pants and say "Maybe we'll help you out Bush..... as long as your willing to take some snaussage"

 

US got themselves into one hell of a mess with the whole situation. The argument of "you can't prove they're not there" is completely invalid, because I can't prove that there isn't stores of anthrax in Antarctica, so that means I believe they should be there.?

 

The right wingers of the US have been completely sodomised by their government and are looking for more. They've been lied to and fucked out of copious amounts of money, they've gone against their own democratic attitudes and now the government's got nothing to show for it except for emptying pockets.

Do you not understand that many people from YOUR country have DIED because of the War in Iraq........ and you've got nothing to show for it. You got mad and you got paranoid and you rushed into a war that was not necessary. You were told by the UN, the peace keeping force of the world, not to enter Iraq, that things were getting taken care of (which they were. As long as the UN inspectors were around Iraq wasn't gonna do anything. Hell keep them there for 100 years, they don't cost as much as a war and they were keeping the peace), but you went ahead and did it anyway.

 

It seems to me that the right side of this board are only believing what they want to believe and are in an ignorant dilusion about the war.

I agree with everything you said.

[Guest MikeSC]

 

So where are those WMDs again?

6 months and they still haven't found any WMD

 

or Bin Laden

or Saddam

Ask ANYBODY and they'll tell you the same thing:

 

Finding ONE GUY in a region full of his supporters is nigh impossible.

 

As for WMD --- just wait.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Just bringing you back to the topic for a second.

I'm glad that the UN decided to help out in maintaining Iraq. It is the right thing for them to do regardless of what their previous relations with the US.

However, I have to say that I would have liked to see the UN pull down the collective pants and say "Maybe we'll help you out Bush..... as long as your willing to take some snaussage"

 

Of course, without us, the U.N is REALLY impotent --- as opposed to the just being pretty impotent as they are right now.

 

The U.N said, repeatedly, that they'd do exactly what we DID should Saddam continue to defy them. Of course, they didn't want to, as looking like jokes is not a huge problem for an organization run by every single two-bit dictator on Earth.

 

US got themselves into one hell of a mess with the whole situation.

 

Mess? This is a mess? If you say so.

 

The argument of "you can't prove they're not there" is completely invalid, because I can't prove that there isn't stores of anthrax in Antarctica, so that means I believe they should be there.?

 

Pro-inspector people said it'd take YEARS to find WMD in Iraq. Why is it supposed to take the military a few months while they have OTHER issues (such as taking Iraq from its former standing as a third-world shithole to a borderline competent member of the int'l community) to deal with in addition to looking?

 

The right wingers of the US have been completely sodomised by their government and are looking for more.

 

Ah, credibility, fare thee well.

 

They've been lied to and fucked out of copious amounts of money, they've gone against their own democratic attitudes and now the government's got nothing to show for it except for emptying pockets.

 

Haven't been lied to. Sorry to disappoint ya.

 

Do you not understand that many people from YOUR country have DIED because of the War in Iraq........ and you've got nothing to show for it.

 

Except Iraq is now free, doing better, and we've done the right thing. But, hey, the left has long loathed doing ANYTHING for ANYBODY besides themselves, so this is nothing new.

 

You got mad and you got paranoid and you rushed into a war that was not necessary.

 

We did what needed to be done and we did it quite efficiently.

 

You were told by the UN, the peace keeping force of the world,

 

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!

 

You're not being serious, are you?

 

U.N --- "Peace keeping force of the world"?

 

Funniest line I've EVER read.

 

not to enter Iraq, that things were getting taken care of (which they were. As long as the UN inspectors were around Iraq wasn't gonna do anything. Hell keep them there for 100 years, they don't cost as much as a war and they were keeping the peace), but you went ahead and did it anyway.

 

Saddam was still supporting terrorism, which we said would lead to serious repurcussions.

 

I love that the Left has NO problem with Iraqis being tortured.

 

Then again, you think the U.N is a good organization, so you're either horribly naive --- or idiotic.

 

I can't tell which.

 

It seems to me that the right side of this board are only believing what they want to believe and are in an ignorant dilusion about the war.

 

It seems to me that you, and any unfortunate sop that believes what you write, such as that doof whose post immediately follows yours, have serious mental issues.

-=Mike

[Red Baron 0]

How is it, without the U.S.A. the U.N. won't be around. You guys don't really give a flying fuck unless Americans were involved. If 9/11 happened in Canada, UK, or Japan, you guys wouldn't care as much.

 

And yes this is a mess. How much money have you spent so far, and what are the results??? Two powers gone, but trying to find leaders while the American economy is pissing away and trying to keep American forces in nations, and all they are doing is trying to find a needle in a haystack, while countless soldiers are dying more than the actual war itself. While no evidence of WMD has been found. While rebel forces in Iraq countinusly attack American soldiers. A Big Mess, indeed...

 

The U.N. is a great organizations, its just Americans don't like it because they don't like following other organizations rules and regulations, and have to do their own ways.

[Vyce 0]

How is it, without the U.S.A. the U.N. won't be around.

 

Oh, it would still be around. It would just have a lot less money and power.

 

You guys don't really give a flying fuck unless Americans were involved. If 9/11 happened in Canada, UK, or Japan, you guys wouldn't care as much.

 

Yes, of course, you've figured us out. We're that selfish and self-absorbed.

 

Your ignorance frightens me, but I suppose this remark of yours is slightly better than the usual standard line I hear from individuals such as yourself, who usually claim that we "deserved" 9/11.

 

Truth is, perhaps we would not have had quite such a personal reaction if Tokyo or Toronto had been hit, but to say we wouldn't have cared is worse than naive, it's pure idiocy.

 

If those two countries had been hit, who would likely be leading the fight - with military force, if necessary - against the perpetrators? America.

 

And yes this is a mess. How much money have you spent so far, and what are the results??? Two powers gone, but trying to find leaders while the American economy is pissing away and trying to keep American forces in nations, and all they are doing is trying to find a needle in a haystack, while countless soldiers are dying more than the actual war itself. While no evidence of WMD has been found. While rebel forces in Iraq countinusly attack American soldiers. A Big Mess, indeed...

 

Things aren't nowhere near as bad as you hope them to be.

 

I'm sure Mike will have something witty to say about your comments, though, and I await that eagerly.

 

The U.N. is a great organizations,

 

They are good at organizing humanitarian aid, and....

 

....oh wait, you mean great OVERALL. There we will have to disagree.

 

its just Americans don't like it because they don't like following other organizations rules and regulations, and have to do their own ways.

 

No, it's more like we don't like the duplicity of an organization - and its member nations - that grants us the power to perform an act such as eliminate Saddam (which the U.N. DID do - I hope you're bright enough to realize that, they DID pass resolutions) and then fails utterly to execute their own regulations when it is required.

 

America's likely just a bit tired of carrying the weight of the U.N. for very little in return.

[Guest MikeSC]

How is it, without the U.S.A. the U.N. won't be around.

 

Hmm, we supply the arms, the troops, the money --- and the mere fact that we even pretend to listen gives them legitimacy.

 

You guys don't really give a flying fuck unless Americans were involved. If 9/11 happened in Canada, UK, or Japan, you guys wouldn't care as much.

 

Well, except that when natural disasters hit other countries, we tend to send aid immediately. Not much aid heads OUR way when WE get hit with a natural disaster. But, hey, we're just selfish.

 

Well, except for that whole Marshall Plan thing. Oh, and giving Germany and Japan functional governments. Or freeing Kuwait.

 

If you don't mind me asking --- what the heck has the REST OF THE WORLD done for humanity that APPROACHES what we did? The rest of the world was satisfied doing business with a tyrant that tortures his people and imprisons children for not joining his party.

 

The "morality" of the world is severely lacking.

 

And yes this is a mess. How much money have you spent so far, and what are the results???

 

Hmm, no more Saddam. Iraq QUICKLY becoming a real country now. The Iraqi leadership being rounded up. Saddam's evil boys are now dead.

 

Two powers gone, but trying to find leaders while the American economy is pissing away and trying to keep American forces in nations

 

OK, time for Econ 101

 

THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROVIDE JOBS.

 

and all they are doing is trying to find a needle in a haystack, while countless soldiers are dying more than the actual war itself.

 

One a day, on average, is countless?

 

Man, WW II would've been lost by the Allied quickly had it been fought today.

 

While no evidence of WMD has been found. While rebel forces in Iraq countinusly attack American soldiers. A Big Mess, indeed...

 

Actually, evidence HAS been found, if you would read the Kay report. And rebel forces are being subdued. It happens. That's what happens when you're the superpower in the world. Sometimes, you have to get your hands dirty.

 

The U.N. is a great organizations, its just Americans don't like it because they don't like following other organizations rules and regulations, and have to do their own ways.

 

Who's heading the Human Rights division of the U.N?

Who was heading the Disarmament Commission?

The U.N is a haven of cronies and despots.

 

The U.N is a joke --- but hey, if you're a useless country with a dictator, you couldn't find a better organization, I suppose.

-=Mike

[tommytomlin 0]

I still don't see how the U.N wanting a few more months for weapons inspections to try and find a peaceful solution to the conflict makes THEM the ignorant bad guys, when it was the United States who propped up Saddam with money, weapons and the ability to MAKE the dreaded WMD's in the first place. I don't see how you can say the United Nations isn't doing its job when YOUR country was the one who made Saddam so powerful to BEGIN with. France, Germany and Russia may have been in bed with Saddam, but so was America, and they left a mint on his pillow the morning after.

 

 

The fact of the matter is, you may oppose the U.N on security issues, but there is more to the United Nations than the Security Council, or the fact that Libya is the chair for Human Rights Abuses (strange how people only complain about that when they need some ammunition for U.N bashing, and not when it was chosen) U.N's humanitarian aid groups are the best in the world, and provide running water, food, shelter and hope for millions of people. You claim to support freeing millions of Iraqi's from tyranny, yet you also want the United States and its billions of dollars of funding to say 'screw you' to the United Nations, putting even MORE people at risk of starvation and death?

[Guest MikeSC]

I still don't see how the U.N wanting a few more months for weapons inspections to try and find a peaceful solution to the conflict makes THEM the ignorant bad guys

,

 

Again, you ignored that we went with the timeline offered up by, *gasp*, THE UNITED NATIONS! We gave them years and realized that Saddam was going to obstruct, delay, and prevent total access --- which is NOT acceptable. The U.N said it was unacceptable, but apparently, didn't actually want to do anything.

 

when it was the United States who propped up Saddam with money, weapons and the ability to MAKE the dreaded WMD's in the first place.

 

You're thoroughly ignorant as to how the U.N ran the "oil for food" program in Iraq, aren't you?

 

I love this whole "You supported them" crap. Well, gee, I suppose we're supposed to be held responsible for what ANY former ally does, huh?

 

Yeesh, left-wingers can be unbelievably dense.

 

I don't see how you can say the United Nations isn't doing its job when YOUR country was the one who made Saddam so powerful to BEGIN with.

 

We had no beef with Iraq until they invaded Kuwait --- and it was the U.N who prevented us from removing the problem. It was the U.N who sat by and watched Hussein gas his people.

 

The U.N is run by dictators and despots. But, the int'l left happens to LIKE despots, so it figures.

 

I say LEAVE the U.N immediately and see how effective that shithole is without us. Think League of Nations --- only MORE impotent.

 

France, Germany and Russia may have been in bed with Saddam, but so was America, and they left a mint on his pillow the morning after.

 

Of course, unlike them, we tried to FIX the problem, rather than continue it.

 

The fact of the matter is, you may oppose the U.N on security issues, but there is more to the United Nations than the Security Council, or the fact that Libya is the chair for Human Rights Abuses (strange how people only complain about that when they need some ammunition for U.N bashing, and not when it was chosen)

 

Libya being chosen was pretty roundly condemned. And I love that you completely dismiss that a state with a HORRID human rights record RUNS THE FREAKIN' COMMITTEE on it. Way to deflect.

 

U.N's humanitarian aid groups are the best in the world, and provide running water, food, shelter and hope for millions of people.

 

Also provided a hide-out for Palestinian bombers in Israel. Let's not try and forget that.

 

You claim to support freeing millions of Iraqi's from tyranny, yet you also want the United States and its billions of dollars of funding to say 'screw you' to the United Nations, putting even MORE people at risk of starvation and death?

 

Absolutely. Pull the plug on that joke.

 

The U.N does considerably more harm than good.

 

The U.S ALONE has done more good for the world than the U.N ever has --- and definitely ever will.

-=Mike

[Red Baron 0]

The U.N. should have ignored the U.S. aid to help in Iraq. Be glad that the U.N. is actually doings something to HELP America, because America is fighting a loss cause.

 

You just think that the U.N. isn't helping America, and it isn't, because maybe, the U.N. couldn't really give a rats ass about what America even does. The U.N. helps out a lot of third world nations with aid, peace keeping, and are still there, in places, where America has forgot, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, and other places in the world.

 

America is so up tight about terrorism, that what is it? Some kind of shade of yellow terror alert? Get over it, no one would want to piss you off in the states alone, and attack the nation again.

 

This is what happens when a dumbass republican is in power, and he is basically doing what his daddy 12 years ago, except even worse. Why do you think in the 8 years of Bill Clinton in power was so damn good. America was the super-power, and no one threaten them, now its almost a joke.

 

I went a bit off topic a bit, but trying to liberate a country the size of California (I think) while still a good chunk of the people wants America out of the country. The government isn't that great, it has improved, but Iraq will never a be a super country, and no one can really conquer that area, and control it the way the want it to be.

[Guest MikeSC]

The U.N. should have ignored the U.S. aid to help in Iraq. Be glad that the U.N. is actually doings something to HELP America, because America is fighting a loss cause.

 

We don't NEED their help. Their help is nice, but we could do exceptionally well without them. Heck, there is a good chance they'll make things much worse.

 

You just think that the U.N. isn't helping America, and it isn't, because maybe, the U.N. couldn't really give a rats ass about what America even does.

 

Even though we supply the troops and money? Yeah, this is a good deal for us. So, the U.N is FOR despots --- but free republics and countries that ACTUALLY DO GOOD aren't wanted?

 

And you wonder why people think the U.N is such a waste.

 

The U.N. helps out a lot of third world nations with aid, peace keeping, and are still there, in places, where America has forgot, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, and other places in the world.

 

Who supplied the majority of those troops?

 

America is so up tight about terrorism, that what is it? Some kind of shade of yellow terror alert? Get over it, no one would want to piss you off in the states alone, and attack the nation again.

 

Because, unlike the U.N, we DID SOMETHING about it. The U.N will sit back and pass resolutions until they're blue in the face --- but they won't DO anything.

 

This is what happens when a dumbass republican is in power

 

What, we actually DO something and stop allowing people to bomb us without retaliation?

 

Hint --- if the WORLD did that, there'd be less of a problem.

 

and he is basically doing what his daddy 12 years ago, except even worse

 

Hmm, we had MORE countries in this action against Iraq than we had in 1991. We have rebuilt our intelligence. We have liberated Pakistan AND Iraq.

 

Yup, nothing --- exactly what we did.

 

Why do you think in the 8 years of Bill Clinton in power was so damn good.

 

Perhaps you should be asking YOURSELF that question.

 

America was the super-power, and no one threaten them, now its almost a joke.

 

Well, unless you ignore the WTC in 1993.

Or the ship in Africa.

Or the bombings in Saudi Arabia.

 

Ignore that and you might --- nah, you still lack a point.

 

I went a bit off topic a bit, but trying to liberate a country the size of California (I think) while still a good chunk of the people wants America out of the country.

 

You went off-topic a bit? Didn't notice. Sounded like the same old, same old out of you. Most Iraqis are glad we're there and feel that they have a future now.

 

But, hey, I guess we're just all bad.

 

The government isn't that great, it has improved, but Iraq will never a be a super country, and no one can really conquer that area, and control it the way the want it to be

 

So, because things can't be perfect, we shouldn't try?

 

Well, Africa is screwed then, aren't they?

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Somebody get Jobber into this discussion.

 

Your fellow left-wingers here aren't representing the cause so well.

[Guest jpclemmons]

 

So where are those WMDs again?

6 months and they still haven't found any WMD

 

or Bin Laden

or Saddam

Ask ANYBODY and they'll tell you the same thing:

 

Finding ONE GUY in a region full of his supporters is nigh impossible.

 

As for WMD --- just wait.

-=Mike

but you wingers couldn't wait for Hans Blix to find any WMDs to rush to war. but now you guys want us to give David Kay more time to find "intent" of getting WMDs, and wasting 600 million of our tax dollars.

 

the hypocrisy of the right is amazing.

[Guest jpclemmons]

Somebody get Jobber into this discussion.

 

Your fellow left-wingers here aren't representing the cause so well.

like you right-wingers are making any better points.

 

btw

nice to see who the next president of the US is on your sig.

[Justice 0]

The U.N. should have ignored the U.S. aid to help in Iraq. Be glad that the U.N. is actually doings something to HELP America, because America is fighting a loss cause.

And nothing would have changed, Xero. Right now they are just going to give us some money (Which we can easily shoulder) and a token amount of troops. It's not as though the UN being involved is anything more than a publicity stunt.

 

And hey, I wonder: Did the UN give any aid to the US after September 11th? In fact, did ANYONE give the US aid after that to help the families and to help rebuild the Twin Towers? We help people who get kicked around and don't get it when we are the ones getting kicked. That's the American way, I suppose.

 

You just think that the U.N. isn't helping America, and it isn't, because maybe, the U.N. couldn't really give a rats ass about what America even does. The U.N. helps out a lot of third world nations with aid,

 

You stupid fuck. Check out the aid we gave in 2001. Wow, a lot of that looks to be to the UN. I wonder how many other countries give that much.

 

The U.N. helps out a lot of third world nations with aid

 

With a lot of our money, remember.

 

peace keeping, and are still there, in places, where America has forgot, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, and other places in the world.

 

We never fucking forgot. Hell, the UN wasn't going to GO into Kosovo until we did, despite the proof of genocide there. Shows how the selfish and self-serving motives of only one country (Russia, in this case), can completely stop the UN from doing something it should, which is it's primary flaw.

 

And just to note: Kosovo IS IN Yugoslavia, moron. Last time the UN tried to go it alone there they got completely kicked in the ass and had to call on US to bail them out. When you really look at it, we fight, they clean up with our money. Wow, what a self-sufficient organization, Xero!

 

America is so up tight about terrorism, that what is it? Some kind of shade of yellow terror alert? Get over it, no one would want to piss you off in the states alone, and attack the nation again.

 

...

 

Because, as we all know, terrorist groups really care who they piss off with their suicide attacks and what happens afterwards. Christ, we've arrested dozens of people with plans to attack the US.

 

This is what happens when a dumbass republican is in power, and he is basically doing what his daddy 12 years ago, except even worse. Why do you think in the 8 years of Bill Clinton in power was so damn good. America was the super-power, and no one threaten them, now its almost a joke.

 

Why, because all we did was chuck missiles at targets and never really fight back? Or was it when we backed out of Somalia after one "bad" operation?

 

We were threatened. Don't you remember the US Embassy in Tanzania being blown up? Or the World Trade Center Bombing in 1993? How bout the attack on the US Cole? You are kidding, right? We were obviously being attacked, just from afar. Clinton did nothing except chucking missiles at them(Not really his fault, but we realize what is wrong with that now) to look as though we really are doing something when we aren't actually doing anything substantive?

 

And hey, I don't remember Clinton having the Twin Towers being destroyed on his watch. It's not the 90's anymore, no matter how much we all want to return to that age of ignorant bliss. We ignored Terrorism then, but we can't ignore it now. So take out your earplugs and wake up.

 

I went a bit off topic a bit, but trying to liberate a country the size of California (I think) while still a good chunk of the people wants America out of the country. The government isn't that great, it has improved, but Iraq will never a be a super country, and no one can really conquer that area, and control it the way the want it to be.

 

It's been stated hundreds of times already that it is as big as California. If you can't grasp that much after it being bombarded into your head, you give me serious doubts on your intelligence here.

 

It has improved. So what if it won't be a super country, it could at least be one where you don't have to live in fear of you or your family members being dragged out of your house and tortured because you are a perceived threat to the state. It can be tolerable state, something where it may not be the best living conditions, but you can live comfortably there. I mean, aren't most European countries at this level?

 

We aren't conquering it, we are liberating and educating it. We don't intend to make it a state, we intend to teach them and guide them on how to be a democracy with a system similar to our own. With the defeatist attitude, why didn't we let Hitler just take over Europe? It's not like we could stop him. Or how bout Korea? It's not like we could stem the North Koreans or something like that.

 

I know Mike already did this, but this one was just too stupid to pass up.

[Firestarter 0]

I went a bit off topic a bit, but trying to liberate a country the size of California (I think) while still a good chunk of the people wants America out of the country. The government isn't that great, it has improved, but Iraq will never a be a super country, and no one can really conquer that area, and control it the way the want it to be.

It's been stated hundreds of times already that it is as big as California.

Iraq is actually over 271,583 miles square. That's more than 100,000 square miles bigger than the state of California.

[Justice 0]

but you wingers couldn't wait for Hans Blix to find any WMDs to rush to war. but now you guys want us to give David Kay more time to find "intent" of getting WMDs, and wasting 600 million of our tax dollars.

 

the hypocrisy of the right is amazing.

You fucking moron. The difference between Kay and Blix? One doesn't have a hostile government constantly working against his efforts. You couldn't do proper searches against a Government when the Government still had the power to move things, misdirect your people, and constantly thwart your efforts to go where you needed to go.

 

We've never had a clean go at Iraq, which is why all the UN Inspectors back before the war were useless: We'd never get the evidence we needed because the criminals always had a chance to hide it. We have a clean chance now, we just need to actually look.

 

It's funny that people try to claim hypocrisy when the situations are different in a very fundamental way.

 

like you right-wingers are making any better points.

 

btw

nice to see who the next president of the US is on your sig.

 

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is hilarious. We bring up evidence, you bring up unresearched rhetoric. Hell, you rarely bring up any points that aren't outside of the basic "I'm a liberal but I don't actually look into things" variety.

 

And did you know that Dean is calling for a repeal of all tax cuts? Mondale 2K4 :lol:!! The fact that Lieberman is still hanging with him and Clark is ahead of him is a testament to his electability.

[Justice 0]

I went a bit off topic a bit, but trying to liberate a country the size of California (I think) while still a good chunk of the people wants America out of the country. The government isn't that great, it has improved, but Iraq will never a be a super country, and no one can really conquer that area, and control it the way the want it to be.

It's been stated hundreds of times already that it is as big as California.

Iraq is actually over 271,583 miles square. That's more than 100,000 square miles bigger than the state of California.

Wow, thank you, Marney. I stand corrected. I believe the proper measuring stick, though, is generally California.

[Guest jpclemmons]

but you wingers couldn't wait for Hans Blix to find any WMDs to rush to war. but now you guys want us to give David Kay more time to find "intent" of getting WMDs, and wasting 600 million of our tax dollars.

 

the hypocrisy of the right is amazing.

You fucking moron. The difference between Kay and Blix? One doesn't have a hostile government constantly working against his efforts. You couldn't do proper searches against a Government when the Government still had the power to move things, misdirect your people, and constantly thwart your efforts to go where you needed to go.

 

We've never had a clean go at Iraq, which is why all the UN Inspectors back before the war were useless: We'd never get the evidence we needed because the criminals always had a chance to hide it. We have a clean chance now, we just need to actually look.

 

It's funny that people try to claim hypocrisy when the situations are different in a very fundamental way.

 

like you right-wingers are making any better points.

 

btw

nice to see who the next president of the US is on your sig.

 

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is hilarious. We bring up evidence, you bring up unresearched rhetoric. Hell, you rarely bring up any points that aren't outside of the basic "I'm a liberal but I don't actually look into things" variety.

 

And did you know that Dean is calling for a repeal of all tax cuts? Mondale 2K4 :lol:!! The fact that Lieberman is still hanging with him and Clark is ahead of him is a testament to his electability.

QUOTE=jpclemmons,Oct 20 2003, 03:17 PM] but you wingers couldn't wait for Hans Blix to find any WMDs to rush to war. but now you guys want us to give David Kay more time to find "intent" of getting WMDs, and wasting 600 million of our tax dollars.

 

the hypocrisy of the right is amazing.

You fucking moron. The difference between Kay and Blix? One doesn't have a hostile government constantly working against his efforts. You couldn't do proper searches against a Government when the Government still had the power to move things, misdirect your people, and constantly thwart your efforts to go where you needed to go.

 

We've never had a clean go at Iraq, which is why all the UN Inspectors back before the war were useless: We'd never get the evidence we needed because the criminals always had a chance to hide it. We have a clean chance now, we just need to actually look.

 

but in 6 months. David Kay has found nuthin but papers saying that Saddam had the intent of purchasing WMD programmes. not the actual weapons. and the UN has done a pretty good job of disarming Saddam since the Gulf War 12 years ago.

 

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is hilarious. We bring up evidence, you bring up unresearched rhetoric. Hell, you rarely bring up any points that aren't outside of the basic "I'm a liberal but I don't actually look into things" variety.

 

and you get your evidence from FOXnews, newsmax.com and screaming right radio like Limbaugh and Hannity

[Guest jpclemmons]

Spend more on schools? Well, the federal gov't gives about 7% of a school's total budget, so it won't do much good. And God knows we don't want the federal gov't getting involved in something that THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS GETTING INVOLVED IN.

 

 

remember Bush's "No child left behind" act of 2002. thats supossed to give minority schools funding(IIRC).

 

 

Upgrading the power grid? You know, you might want to spend a little time figuring out HOW to do it before you do it

 

Former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson

''We're the world's greatest superpower, but we have

a 3rd World electricity grid. "

 

"We need to bring our power grids back to the 21st century. We need to

modernize our grids, but to do that, we need to set up a national "rules

of the road" on governing and managing and especially providing better

access to the nation's transmission system. Presently, utilities just

use the electric lines in the same way that truckers use highways, they

have no interest in upgrading the grids, no more than truckers have an

interest in fixing potholes on the highway. So it's the role of

government to help set up the financial incentives for utilities to

build new transmission lines. "

[Vyce 0]

Somebody get Jobber into this discussion.

 

Your fellow left-wingers here aren't representing the cause so well.

like you right-wingers are making any better points.

 

Oh, I think Mike & Powerplay are doing fairly well. At least against the likes of those such as you.

 

btw nice to see who the next president of the US is on your sig.

 

Thank you for endorsing me.

 

My poll numbers are actually up. If I can convince Sharpton to drop out and then become my running mate, I'll have the election locked down. VYCE FOR AMERICA!!!!

[Justice 0]

Spend more on schools? Well, the federal gov't gives about 7% of a school's total budget, so it won't do much good. And God knows we don't want the federal gov't getting involved in something that THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS GETTING INVOLVED IN.

 

 

remember Bush's "No child left behind" act of 2002. thats supossed to give minority schools funding(IIRC).

Fixed that little problem you had there. You have to put a "/" tag at the end of it, which is why the rest of your post was all weird. A friendly gesture from me to you .

 

I really doubt it was "Minority" schools, but rather "underpriviledged". Just a change of wording since "minority" school is pretty racist. You don't give out funding on whether or not someone is African-American, you give it out if they actually need it. There are under-funded schools in rural areas, remember?

 

And the schools can't depend so much on the Federal Government. I want your honest estimate on a percentage of Federal Money that should make up a school's budget. I honestly don't think you can get any good argument against Bush here for that one.

 

Upgrading the power grid? You know, you might want to spend a little time figuring out HOW to do it before you do it

 

Former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson

''We're the world's greatest superpower, but we have

a 3rd World electricity grid. "

 

"We need to bring our power grids back to the 21st century. We need to

modernize our grids, but to do that, we need to set up a national "rules

of the road" on governing and managing and especially providing better

access to the nation's transmission system. Presently, utilities just

use the electric lines in the same way that truckers use highways, they

have no interest in upgrading the grids, no more than truckers have an

interest in fixing potholes on the highway. So it's the role of

government to help set up the financial incentives for utilities to

build new transmission lines. "

 

The Senate was already working on a bill when I was checking on it. The Democrats had prepared a bare-bones one to fix what looks like failed while the Republicans were offering a much larger total revamping of the power grid, which would cost more but probably help a lot more than just putting a patch in the hull and saying "Hopefully that will be the last problem". Does anyone remember how that vote came out? I was moving back to my dorm at the time and was really busy, so I don't really remember how it ended up.

 

Moving on to the post before that...

 

but in 6 months. David Kay has found nuthin but papers saying that Saddam had the intent of purchasing WMD programmes. not the actual weapons. and the UN has done a pretty good job of disarming Saddam since the Gulf War 12 years ago.

 

You are very confused on this issue.

 

He had only been there three, I believe. The team was not in Iraq during the war and got there over the summer when things had calmed down. All the other searches were looking stuff just lying around in the open. He's found unreported labs and research on things that were supposed to be declared to the UN but never were. That right there would technically disobey the UN's order against Iraq and allow us to go in. We've also found illegal missile research that would allow Saddam to hit things as far as Cairo, Egypt and with that, Israel. No one has been able to dispute this fact and that alone makes him a threat since he can bomb places from afar with High Explosive or quite possibly with NBC cargos.

 

Secondly, they've found evidence that suggests he was still doing research into Bioweapons. Maybe not much research found about chemical weapons (As was pointed out in Kay's report), but he had tons of CWs before the Gulf and has always been thought to have hid away enough to still cause significant damage.

 

Thirdly, the Ammo dumps they are searching through are enormous. Tyler's little article from the LA Times said that CWs and BWs are always marked with special insignas, but those can be easily taken off since they are only painted on. Couple that with the fact that France's delaying in the UN afforded Saddam a week or so to mix up his WMD stocks with his conventional weapons makes it a daunting task which requires the small team to search each and every shell in the massive ammo dumps. And those are only the locations we knew of: that doesn't even account for the hidden places Saddam may have had or even him trying to bury them before the US could come in.

 

Hans Blix didn't find any of this stuff. No UN inspectors did after 12 years. We only found that after 3 months of having no Iraqi Government to jerk us around and constantly play hide and seek with. Where's the hypocrisy?

 

and you get your evidence from FOXnews, newsmax.com and screaming right radio like Limbaugh and Hannity

 

I don't get Fox News at my college and never really watched it much anyways, I only go to cnn.com for my news updates since it's devoid of liberal anchors like Aaron Brown who seems so full of himself that it makes it nigh unbearable to get any real news from him, and I honestly don't listen much to the AM dial. I don't honestly believe that I've ever given sources from the above, though Limbaugh can be interesting to listen to sometimes (You can't deny that he's an entertaining speaker even if you disagree with his views). But hey, thanks for trying to stereotype me *Buddy Christ Thumbs-Up*.

[Justice 0]

And hey, for all those that say we don't do enough for the UN, we foot a $2,400,000,000 bill for them, approximately 25% of their budget for only one vote there. Wow, and people say we should kiss the UN's ass? Hell, the other four security council members combined only foot HALF of what we are. So who really wants to claim we don't do enough for this ineffectual organization?

 

Edit: Another interesting fact I noticed is that Japan foots 20% of the bill themselves. I'd like to start a movement to get Japan a permanent seat on the Security Council with a veto power rather than France, Russia, or China. Who is with me?

Edited October 20, 2003 by Powerplay

[Guest jpclemmons]

look down.

Edited October 21, 2003 by jpclemmons

[Guest jpclemmons]

I really doubt it was "Minority" schools, but rather "underpriviledged". Just a change of wording since "minority" school is pretty racist. You don't give out funding on whether or not someone is African-American, you give it out if they actually need it. There are under-funded schools in rural areas, remember?

 

And the schools can't depend so much on the Federal Government. I want your honest estimate on a percentage of Federal Money that should make up a school's budget. I honestly don't think you can get any good argument against Bush here for that one

 

yeah, that's more of a state issue. I was just leaving something Bush failed to deliver on.

 

it should be about 3 to 6 percent on the federal budget. I think the school funding issue is a state rather than federal.

 

The Senate was already working on a bill when I was checking on it. The Democrats had prepared a bare-bones one to fix what looks like failed while the Republicans were offering a much larger total revamping of the power grid, which would cost more but probably help a lot more than just putting a patch in the hull and saying "Hopefully that will be the last problem". Does anyone remember how that vote came out? I was moving back to my dorm at the time and was really busy, so I don't really remember how it ended up.

 

I think the bill past

 

 

on the WMD's issue. I always thought Saddam had the WMD's. I was suprised as everyone when Saddam didn't use them(and I'm glad he didn't) during the invasion. Donald Rumsfeld and many other hawks of the administration said they knew where the WMD's were. and in six months, we've still found nothing but "intent".

 

 

I don't get Fox News at my college and never really watched it much anyways, I only go to cnn.com for my news updates since it's devoid of liberal anchors like Aaron Brown who seems so full of himself that it makes it nigh unbearable to get any real news from him, and I honestly don't listen much to the AM dial. I don't honestly believe that I've ever given sources from the above, though Limbaugh can be interesting to listen to sometimes (You can't deny that he's an entertaining speaker even if you disagree with his views). But hey, thanks for trying to stereotype me *Buddy Christ Thumbs-Up*.

 

glad to hear you're not a dittohead.

Edited October 21, 2003 by jpclemmons

[Guest jpclemmons]

Go to Baghdad. Go tell a child on the street who watched his mother being raped and his father getting shot in the head that no one had the right to kill the madman who left him an orphan. Go to a Kurdish village and tell the people there that they deserved to be human guinea pigs for a tyrant's chemical arsenal. Go dig up a mass grave containing thousands upon thousands of men, women and children, corpses buried dozens deep - go dig it up and grab one of the countless skulls staring blindly into the dirt and shout in its face that we were wrong.

 

Go do that. Then shriek your petty sarcasm to the wind

 

you could pretty much say that about Uzbekistan(a country of the coalition). should we liberate them as well?

[Justice 0]

I really doubt it was "Minority" schools, but rather "underpriviledged". Just a change of wording since "minority" school is pretty racist. You don't give out funding on whether or not someone is African-American, you give it out if they actually need it. There are under-funded schools in rural areas, remember?

 

And the schools can't depend so much on the Federal Government. I want your honest estimate on a percentage of Federal Money that should make up a school's budget. I honestly don't think you can get any good argument against Bush here for that one

 

it should be about 3 to 6 percent on the federal budget. I think the school funding issue is a state rather than federal.

I think it's fine where it's at, otherwise there'd be a real hit towards schools all around the country. But that seems okay; Bush definitely supports Education, eh?

 

SPECIAL EDITION EDIT: It seems you changed what you originally said, there.

 

yeah, that's more of a state issue. I was just leaving something Bush failed to deliver on.

 

If it's a State Issue, what could Bush do outside put more money into it? That's a failure on THEIR part, not his part. Unless it's a federal issue, that is. But you say it's not, so it's not a failure on his part.

 

The Senate was already working on a bill when I was checking on it. The Democrats had prepared a bare-bones one to fix what looks like failed while the Republicans were offering a much larger total revamping of the power grid, which would cost more but probably help a lot more than just putting a patch in the hull and saying "Hopefully that will be the last problem". Does anyone remember how that vote came out? I was moving back to my dorm at the time and was really busy, so I don't really remember how it ended up.

 

I think the bill past.

 

Yeah, but which one? The two were very different in their approach, which is why I'm wondering about it.

 

on the second issue. I always thought Saddam had the WMD's. I was suprised as everyone when Saddam didn't use them(and I'm glad he didn't) during the invasion. Donald Rumsfeld and many other hawks of the administration said they knew where the WMD's were. and in six months, we've still found nothing but "intent".

 

Again, technically we've only been there 3 months and we've already found things that the UN Inspectors in 12 years never found.

 

I honestly wasn't surprised that he didn't use them. By doing so he would have made the US look completely in the right and by just hiding them and trying to lie low he can try to hurt the US on the PR front. The only thing he'd do if he used Chemical weapons is unite the nation again and fuel even more effort against Middle East. We'd be in Syria right now had he done that sort of stuff.

 

Again, give us time. We are trying to be as accurate and sure about things as possible instead of quickly rushing through everything trying to find evidence. Time is on our side right now, so rushing the process (Like everyone on the left wants to do) will only make our results more inaccurate.

 

I don't get Fox News at my college and never really watched it much anyways, I only go to cnn.com for my news updates since it's devoid of liberal anchors like Aaron Brown who seems so full of himself that it makes it nigh unbearable to get any real news from him, and I honestly don't listen much to the AM dial. I don't honestly believe that I've ever given sources from the above, though Limbaugh can be interesting to listen to sometimes (You can't deny that he's an entertaining speaker even if you disagree with his views). But hey, thanks for trying to stereotype me *Buddy Christ Thumbs-Up*.

 

glad to hear your'e not a dittohead;).

 

I find the people who constantly scream "FAUX NEWZ LOL2K3" to be quite possibly some of the most irritating people I know. Fox can be inaccurate at times, but just shut the fuck and stop beating the God damn dead horse already. And please, don't try to stereotype conservative thinkers as people who listen and watch the same things. It makes you look close-minded, not me.

Edited October 21, 2003 by Powerplay

[Justice 0]

Go to Baghdad. Go tell a child on the street who watched his mother being raped and his father getting shot in the head that no one had the right to kill the madman who left him an orphan. Go to a Kurdish village and tell the people there that they deserved to be human guinea pigs for a tyrant's chemical arsenal. Go dig up a mass grave containing thousands upon thousands of men, women and children, corpses buried dozens deep - go dig it up and grab one of the countless skulls staring blindly into the dirt and shout in its face that we were wrong.

 

Go do that. Then shriek your petty sarcasm to the wind

 

you could pretty much say that about Uzbekistan(a country of the coalition). should we liberate them as well?

They actually don't have the chemical weapons as such, but I'd agree that we should after we get done with those who are actually a threat to international security (Because Saddam DID try to invade Turkey, Kuwait, and Iran) and have access to WMDs. Uzbekistan, in the area of NBC weapons, have been fully cooperative with allowing us to dismantle them and they completely lack anything on that scale, and they haven't actually invaded anyone or make threats to do so recently (Off the top of my head, at least). So after North Korea and possibly Iran (If they don't stop their Nuclear Programs) and Syria (If intelligence leads us there, plus the fact that they are very well known supporters of Islamic terror groups), they may be next. I certainly wouldn't mind it, I could understand the reasoning behind it, but I'm sure people like you'd bitch about it. Personally I can only hope that they start moving forwards with towards more democracy and improving in the area of human rights.

[Firestarter 0]

Go to Baghdad. Go tell a child on the street who watched his mother being raped and his father getting shot in the head that no one had the right to kill the madman who left him an orphan. Go to a Kurdish village and tell the people there that they deserved to be human guinea pigs for a tyrant's chemical arsenal. Go dig up a mass grave containing thousands upon thousands of men, women and children, corpses buried dozens deep - go dig it up and grab one of the countless skulls staring blindly into the dirt and shout in its face that we were wrong.

 

Go do that. Then shriek your petty sarcasm to the wind

 

you could pretty much say that about Uzbekistan(a country of the coalition). should we liberate them as well?

Yes. And the fact that your smiley implies ambivalence to the idea at best and antipathy at worst is in itself an adequate commentary on the moral bankruptcy of the left.