Author
|
Topic: The John Kerry/George W. Bush thread (Read 66888 times)
|
|
|
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
 Offline
Posts: 2847
|
* Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
He was citing the history of the conflict. This resolution (678) was passed after Iraq invaded Kuweit, and it was this resolution that made the first Gulf war possible.
You can make an argument that this resolution was still relevant even years after Kuwait was freed and the US and allies pulled out of the area, but I doubt the United Nations would be impressed with that interpretation.
Note that the original text included "co-operating with the Government of Kuwait", which would have made clear the context, but which was left out in the text you quoted.
These texts you linked to are the arguments used to try to convince the UN that militairy intervention in Iraq was necessary.
When that failed, the Bush administration decided to go ahead anyhow.
To present his case to congress however, Bush focused on the supposed weapons of mass destruction. In Paul Wolfowitz' words: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
But the argument made is not whether the war in Iraq was justified. The argument is that George Bush deceived congress and the people of the Uniter States by presenting false information, in an attempt to justify going to war.
Now you may be convinced that the end justifies the means, but do you really want one person to make decisions of such a magnitude on his own, even if he were the smartest person alive?
Now can we just talk about John Kerry like this thread is meant to be about?
I think the chosen subject for this thread is unfortunate. However, I think the most important (though certainly not the only) argument for voting for Kerry is that he is the only alternative for George Bush, which makes discussion about Bush's "achievements" relevant to the subject.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 07, 2004, 09:03:02 am by meep-eep »
|
Logged
|
“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
Oh dear oh dear... We're really not making much headway, are we? It's a good thing I have a vast amount of patience. You see Bio, the way this works is, you make a point, I respond. I make a point you respond. With this pick and mix style of yours, I have no idea wether you're folding on some issues, or just haven't noticed them.
For example, I do believe I clearly stated that I felt you hadn't made your stand clear on the first question. Yet I still see no new answer to it. This forces me to assume that your assumptions are based on one newspaperclipping that noone else considers relevant, and blind faith, for lack of a better term. Nor did you offer any possible explanation to what happened to all this weapons. Or to quote your own clippings:
* Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions, including Scud variant missile warheads.
* Iraq has not accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred vehicle for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.
I'm left to assume that you believe they disappeared so well in a country completely under your control that you could find only a single shell. This is of course, unless you should actually care to answer and indicate otherwise.
As for your links, well they are very nice. I believe meep already pointed out the flaw with them though. Including the right to invade. If something was left unclear, I'll be happy to elaborate in my next post. Just ask me to.
And if I could once more persuade you to READ my second question, I believe I said:
What I am genuinely curious to know is how you rationalise it. WHY do you feel Iraq was the biggest threat out there, compared to other threatening countries. IN which way were they so much more dangerous than anyone else? I know all the counterarguments arguments about oil and such, but I've yet to hear anything else than defense against those from you. It's all good that you can say, "No, it wasn't for this and this and this reason", but you should then also be able to say "We did it for this and this and this reason. And this is why we thought Saddam was more dangerous than anyone else." For the record "He was a bad man" Is not a valid answer unless you can tell me why he is badder than anyone else.
Your articles are the equal of saying "He's a very bad man" You still fail to adress the question though, why this bad man was singled out, and how is badder than the other bad men out there. Saddam is not the only one to repeteadly flaunt rules. There are others who readily admit to having WMDs. There places where more people die than in Iraq. So once again, WHY. I'm not trying to force a propaganda answer out of you. I just want to know what you think.
Again, your style of answering leaves me confused on three. Do you acknowledge that there was more than "naked parading"? Did you just skip that part? Do you think every source I presented is a lie? By not answering, you're again forcing me to make assumptions that could be completely wrong, due to your inability to answer said question. In this case, I shall assume that you agree to being wrong, unless you state otherwise, and motivate why. Neither have you mentioned anything on yout "Well their just poor soldiers" line as justification for torturing prisoners, meaning I'll have to assume you've completely forgotten about that.
As for four, it's still up to you to prove it, something you haven't bothered to do. Considering your dismal performance in the past:
Killings? if you actualy read the reports[/i] most of the prisoners who died were somehow involved with the CIA, at the time. or died while trying to escape, or solders responsable are now under investigation. but most of the tortue was indeed just naked parading[/b]
And the actuual result of searching the net:
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
I'd say it's up to you to show some convinving proof, other than "LOL, my soldier buddiez sez so!"
And even if you do come up with evidence, I remind you you've only answered one of my conjectures, and not even that one to satisfaction, as meep pointed out.
And finally, have you been gone for long enough to forget how things work here? This is not your topic. You do not call the shots here. Nor do I. The minute Shiver tries to get us back in line, we do so. The second meep tell us to shut our traps, we do so, open another topic and complain about strict moderation (with Shiver, no doubt). However, as long as this does not happen, topic drift is acceptable. Notice how people are pointing out things about Kerry as well, all the time? There is discussion going on. If you don't want to continue this, fine, but realise that it means you're effectively saying "Well, I can't explain why, but I'm right!"
All in all, I have to say that your arguments so far seem to be based more on faith than factual evidence. The few questions you've even begun to answer, you've answered with direct references to what Bush says, taking that as an absolute truth. That's fine, but you can't really use that as an argumentative point. That's like saying, "Well I believe God exists because the Pope says so!" You do, great. But it's not going to convinve any atheist. Not even one in doubt.
I'm not going to be around for a few days, as girlfriend and work takes it's toll on my time. I'll be looking for any replies though.
I leave you with a one more thing, since I got into this whole faith thing at the end. You know what we call that other group of extremely faithful people who want to kill those who show disrespect and have unlimited faith in their leaders?
Radical islamists.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 07, 2004, 09:36:33 am by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
Lukipela I only have a limited time in which I can form replies and each time I form one you say it’s not enough or that I ignored important issues. It’s that I Just don’t have time to respond to every little point that you believe is important. It’s also hard to look up relevant information when DNS is not working properly on my computer. For the past week I’ve had irritating computer problems. Just try to think what it is like to, at random, have entire Domains not load, and continue to not load.
I am going to try, something new, short less fluent sentences to avoid more confusion.
Also Lukipela we live in different paradigms. Most of what I post is considered common senses where I live, and most of what I see you post, in my eyes, is full of flawed logic
There's no need to start hyperventialting and yelling
I’ve have yet to do that, but if you wish for me to do it; I can certainly try.
Again, your style of answering leaves me confused on three. Do you acknowledge that there was more than "naked parading"? Did you just skip that part? Do you think every source I presented is a lie? By not answering, you're again forcing me to make assumptions that could be completely wrong, due to your inability to answer said question. In this case, I shall assume that you agree to being wrong, unless you state otherwise, and motivate why. Neither have you mentioned anything on yout "Well their just poor soldiers" line as justification for torturing prisoners, meaning I'll have to assume you've completely forgotten about that.
You have to look at my wording when I say "most," it means Majority, not all, almost only, does not exclude other things. So when you say I’m wrong by saying that other stuff happened instead of naked parading, it just doesn’t make sense.
This is what I was trying to say:
I can understand what drove the solders to this extreme. It does not justify it, but lessen it. The media coverage is trying to make it worse then it was. It happened in only one prison. It has already been taken care of. It was taken care of even before the media, knew about it, and broke the coverage.
I'm left to assume that you believe they disappeared so well in a country completely under your control that you could find only a single shell. This is of course, unless you should actually care to answer and indicate otherwise.
Iraq is a big country, sparsely populated, full of hiding spots. Remember how long it took to find Saddam? The country is not under the coalition’s control anymore. The country was never been under complete control of the coalition. The solders have mostly been trying to keep the peace and there physical bodies intact. If bush only concentrated on finding WMD, instead of terrorist he would be a bad leader. In time more WMD will most likely show up. One possiblility is that they were moved to another country before the war. WMD was not the only reason for the war. More then enough components to make WMD have been found. More then enough components that can only be used to make WMD have been found.
But the argument made is not whether the war in Iraq was justified. The argument is that George Bush deceived congress and the people of the Uniter States by presenting false information, in an attempt to justify going to war.
Now you may be convinced that the end justifies the means, but do you really want one person to make decisions of such a magnitude on his own, even if he were the smartest person alive?
It wasn't bushes fault; the blame, if any, squarely goes on the CIA. Clinton also believed there were WMD in Iraq. Also other Intelligence organizations concurred with the statement.
I leave you with a one more thing, since I got into this whole faith thing at the end. You know what we call that other group of extremely faithful people who want to kill those who show disrespect and have unlimited faith in their leaders?
Radical islamists.
I never said bush is infallible. I never said I would kill you for speaking your insensitive words. I never said I believe bush on faith. Where, trust instead of faith, comes in to the equation is all the information bush & company do not release to us. Like how they find out where terrorist are, or that they have discover new information. This requires trust, because in a lot of cases if that information got out people would die. Another place where trust comes in is the decision to act on information. Bush acted on information he deemed true, WMD, for example. He may have been wrong about the WMD, but he acted instead of waiting for, beyond a reasonable doubt, which most likely would have been a chemical weapon going off in a major city.
Your articles are the equal of saying "He's a very bad man" You still fail to adress the question though, why this bad man was singled out, and how is badder than the other bad men out there. Saddam is not the only one to repeteadly flaunt rules. There are others who readily admit to having WMDs. There places where more people die than in Iraq. So once again, WHY. I'm not trying to force a propaganda answer out of you. I just want to know what you think.
Lukipela if you actually read the links you would find out every reason why
Saddam is a “badder man” FYI “badder” is not a real word.
Saddam Hussein because:
=>He actively supported terrorists, known to target American solders.
=>He gave sanctuary to terrorists in his country.
=>He actually paid money to Palestinian terrorist that blew themselves up.
=>He had terrorist training camp(s) in his borders.
=>He actually tried to assassinate previous president bush.
=>Has been known to use chemical weapons on his own people.
=>He hated the color pink. (Find an article to disprove this!)
=>He was circumventing UN embargos.
Kim Jong Il :: North Korea
=>One reason why this man was not attacked is because he has china breathing down his neck to behave, and that works. There was no equivalent for Hussein.
=>He has not supported terrorists.
=>He has not funded terrorists.
=>No know assassination attempts.
The reason why Saddam is singled out is because Bush is doing a war on terror. Since bush is doing a war on terror Sudden was a better choice. Sudan is not a major hot bed of terrorist activity. North Korea is not a major hot bed of terrorist activity. The other Arab nations are more timid after seeing Saddam fall.
Here is a list of questions I would like answers from. I did a different numbering scheme to avoid confusion with yours.
Question Alpha:
Why does Russia refuse to lift UN sanctions on Iraq? Even though Saddam is gone?
Question Beta:
Do you think Iraq would be better off with Saddam still in power?
Question Charlie:
What kind of evidence do you want me to list to support my claims?
Question Delta:
Why did France Germany and a whole lot of other countries, as well as Clinton while he was in office, say there were WMD in Iraq? If there weren’t any?
The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, declared on January 20, 2003
"Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process."
BTW: the color pink thing is a joke if you haven’t figured that out by now.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 08, 2004, 02:23:40 am by BioSlayer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 175
|
Does lack of properly functioning DNS also force you to use straw-man arguments, arguments from authority, false dichotomies and the various other forms of rhetoric you've been employing? If I were a betting man (and I am) I'd wager that your unpreparedness goes far beyond your computer woes.
As the Taalo were patient with the Ur-Quan, so too must we be patient with you. So here we go:
Answer Alpha:
You mean like this? I suspect that you are actually asking something else, please ask what it is you actually want us to comment on.
Answer Beta:
Once again, the false dichotomies rear their head. Disapproving of HOW something was done is not the same as disapproving THAT it was done. To quote cliches, "the ends do not justify the means"
Answer Charlie:
It's not that we necesarily place your claims in doubt, it's that your conclusions do not follow your premises, or you make entirely too many assumptions about facts not in evidence. For example, let's revisit your stance regarding torture:
Most scenarios involving "justified torture" go something like this: You know there is going to be an attack. From what you know of the attack, you know that it will be "soon", and that it will be deadly. You know that a person has information on the attack. Via torture, it is possible to know what that person knows. By knowing what they know, it is possible to thwart the attack and save lives. Therefore torture is justified.
Do I need to point out the number of assumptions one has to make that are implausible, improbable, unprovable or downright unknowable in the real world? Implausible, improbable, unprovable and unknowable claims have no place in a rational argument. It then follows that your opinions are based on emotion/rhetoric rather than logic/reason; which is your entitlement, as is ours to call you a "kook", a "crackpot", and a "neo-fascist apologist wingnut" in response. Not that I ever would. 
Answer Delta:
Uhh, because they were wrong also? Again, what are you actually asking?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth." --Fry
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
Reply to answer Alpha:
That is a development I have not seen yet, but they have yet to fully lift the sanctions. For the reason why I want to know is simply curiosity.
Question Beta:
It’s a simple question with 2 possible answers. Yes or no. No large words required.
Question Delta continued: now if France, Germany and Russia were also wrong, why do I get the impression that allot of people want to blame Bush for this “false intelligence?”
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 08, 2004, 02:21:57 am by BioSlayer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
BioSlayer: You're mixing the Greek Alphabet with the International Radio Operator's Alphabet. I shall list both so I do not see this confusion again.
Greek Alphabet:
Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Delta
Epsilon
Zeta
Eta
Theta
Iota
Kappa
Lambda
Mu
Nu
Xi
Omicron
Pi
Rho
Sigma
Tau
Upsilon
Phi
Chi
Psi
Omega
Radio Operator's Alphabet:
Alpha
Bravo
Charlie
Delta
Echo
Foxtrot
Golf
Hotel
India
Juliet
Kilo
Lima
Mike
November
Oscar
Papa
Quebec
Romeo
Sierra
Tango
Uniform
Victor
Whiskey
X-Ray
Yankee
Zulu
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 08, 2004, 02:27:19 am by Shiver »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
Thanks for that list, but I just picked them at random. I used a unique numbering scheme for avoid confusion, not to show my proficiency in either alphabet.
EDIT: Maybe I will use constellation names next. 
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 09, 2004, 02:31:49 am by BioSlayer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
I assumed you were listing with those soley as a way of goofing off. Now people may goof off more effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 175
|
Retort Beta:
You are presenting a false choice -- in your claim, either someone supports the Iraq invasion carte blanche, or they support never having invaded at all. The painfully obvious third option, namely garnering "proper" international support, and going in with the express blessing of the international community, is not presented at all. Restate your question to allow for such concepts, and I'm sure you'll get all manner of answers, both thoughtful and not.
Retort Delta:
I do not understand; does everyone else also being wrong somehow make the administration "less wrong"? Hindsight shows us that Bush's intelligence was false, and he should be held accountable for it, as should the leaders of the other nations involved. Throwing them all out of office for fucking up is a perfectly valid option, you know.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth." --Fry
|
|
|
Vassago_Umara
Frungy champion
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 85
Spathis rule!
|
No one thinks that Saddam Hussein was a good guy, and no one thinks that it was a bad idea pulling him out of power (except for a few in Iraq), but Bush and Co. didn't operate in a fashion that coincides with international law. Laws that were put in place to stabilize the world, what Bush did made it seem to the rest of the world that the U.S. is going to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, no matter what anyone else says, and that is bullshit.
Also I think it is pretty ironic that Bush had top members of the Taliban party on his ranch in Texas in 1999, to discuss the posibility of a pipeline through Afganistan, a pipeline which is happily being built by Bush backers (probably the real power in this administration) Unical and Haliburton.
Bush is a corrupt stooge and needs to be taken out of office as soon as possible.
Also I'm tired of all this crap about criticizing the war being "unamerican", being American gives us that right to question and that's what makes this place so god damn great.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Time is never wasted, if you are wasted all the time.
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
Here's something to discuss beyond the Iraq war: The USA is now more polarized than it has ever been, and in my view this is in no small part the result of the current administration's policies. Demogogues like Rush Limbaugh haven't exactly helped over the years either, but the current administration is so unbelievably arrogant it has driven folks into fairly rigid 'pro' and 'anti' camps. In the prez's own words "you are either with us or against us." Bush's simplistic right/wrong, good/evil, black/white concept of morality has done a pretty good job of molding the national political scene, and indeed the international community, into a similar dichotomy.
The fact that he courts the evangelical vote so closely also gives me cause for grave concern. I recommend everyone check out http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/view/. As someone of no faith I find this intermingling of religion and politics rather frightening, and I'm certainly not alone. Pay particular attention to the segment about the painting in the Governor's mansion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
Question Beta:
Yes or No? I didn’t ask for your thoughts about the question. Contrary to what you may believe the world will not end if you answer this question.
but Bush and Co. didn't operate in a fashion that coincides with international law.
What law(s) if any did bush infringe in his action of removing Saddam Hussein? Also did the 48 other countries who also participated in this action violate said law(s)? When they claimed to be enforcing 17 UNSC resolutions?
Bush is a corrupt stooge and needs to be taken out of office as soon as possible.
Do you have any factual evidence to validate your claim? If so post it, otherwise don’t post unsupported claims.
Also I'm tired of all this crap about criticizing the war being "unamerican", being American gives us that right to question and that's what makes this place so god damn great.
Over “criticizing the war” is one way that discourages troops, and lowers morale. Morale is a very important thing in wars. When troops come home and see the news agencies, who claim to support the troops, reporting only the bad stuff; they get depressed.* That is what you call hypocritical, and in my eyes unpatriotic. There is such a thing as constructive criticism, but there is a sever lack of it in the general media. I would rather have the media stop pounding on every bad thing and report a lot more of the good things, which are happening over there. A few examples: schools opening, power plants are being refitted to produce more energy, water supplies being improved, transfer of power happening 2 days early, and so on and so forth.
* I have talked to solders, and seen many letters that say the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 175
|
I can think of another time when the country was more polarized than it is now, circa 1861, when there was a dispute as to whether states that entered the Union could leave when it became apparent that adequate representation for their interests was not possible -- the most damning evidence being that a President was elected whose name did not even appear on the ballot in fully half of the country. Of course, we all know how that turned out. 
I think that alot of the problem today is that the climate for debate is just so dysfunctional. People do not seem to be interested in reasonable discourse anymore, all the "political" shows that make any money consist entirely of blowhards on the left and right spewing their inconsistant ideologies at the loudest volumes they can manage. Neither side seems at all interested in moving the debate forward, the idealogues just dig in their heels and throw meaningless epithets at each other.
For an example of this, take a perfectly intractable issue in American politics: abortion. The rhetoric used when people debate this makes me physically ill; the two camps have not been on speaking terms with each other for at least a decade now. And the fact that bullets and bombs have been traded over this issue should not be overlooked. It's a big, hairly, intractable mess, and it has been for YEARS.
But here's the rub: neither side ever really brings up the fact that nobody in their right mind would ever claim that people should be having more abortions. Anyone who does is a liar or a fool in some combination. Abortions are a symptom of an actual, solvable problem, namely unplanned pregnancies, and both camps, according to stump speeches, seem to be in favour of reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies out there. Common sense dictates that if you solve the problem of unplanned pregnancies, the abortion issue becomes a no-op, but neither side seems at all interested in moving the debate there; it's apparently much more profitable to go around and around about the symptoms than to solve the actual problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth." --Fry
|
|
|
Vassago_Umara
Frungy champion
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 85
Spathis rule!
|
For simplicity I will include links.
When we go into a country without the support of the U.N. the organization that was designed to prevent World Wars, I would call that a breach of international policy if not law. And for the so called coalition of the willing how many of those 47 nations actually provided something for the war beyond 200-500 troops. Those incredibly powerful nations like Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Uzbekistan, Tonga, Costa Rica, Honduras, Ethiopia, Eritrea ( where the hell is Eritrea?), Rwanda and wait lets not forget Afghanistan (I'm sure they had a BIG choice in this matter). The list goes on of nations that are in some way in our debt. Very few nations with actual power joined us in this mission and if they did they were coerced.
Not only that those nations that were actually simpathetic to the United States after 9/11 have become disgusted with our actions since then.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm
As for Bush being corrupt I only need you to go to one site...
http://hometown.aol.com/GovExposed/
or you can go to www.Howardstern.com for a ton of links to horrible crap the Bush administration has done.
And Bioslayer as for your last post, I have had one of my best friends die in Iraq NEEDLESY, and have two buddies still over there and the only messages I get from those two is that
1. People don't want us there, not a single one.
and
2. They have no idea what they are killing people for... the terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia. Why in the hell didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? Oh wait, the Bush family and friends have had ties with the royal Saudi family (who are not great dictators themselves) and the Bin-Ladin family for decades.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1211-05.htm
All in all, it is disgusting and smacks of pure hubris. I am pure American baby, and I would die for this country, but I will NOT die for Bush, Cheney, Unical, Haliburton, the Carlyle group, etc.
Peace to all.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Time is never wasted, if you are wasted all the time.
|
|
|
|
