We should not attack Iraq

once again i’m agreeing w/ F_alk.
Wow, this may be a trend as long as we do not discuss religion.

@GeZe:

@yourbuttocks:

@GeZe:

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

Except no.

they had when I posted this

Except no.

They said they were studying it, and considering their response.

All the Arab states said that they were sure Sadam would accept it

@cystic:

@Deviant:Scripter:

@cystic:

@Deviant:Scripter:

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

the question is: “would there be a need for a war on terror had Gore been elected?”
i’m being semi-facetious, but i have little doubt that GWB is an antagonizer and does little to promote world peace.

Oh, how could I have been so naive?
I couple months in office surely caused 9/11… :roll:

The more realistic theory, however, is that the terrorists knew they could get away with it, since they had been doing so during Clinton’s term in office. Why not test out the new president?

What?
1)Nothing like 9/11 happened during Clinton’s tenure.
2)“get away with it”? Clinton bombed 4 countries over a 6 month time-period. imagine if Clinton went medieval on someone’s ass.

Just like most of the corporate scandals happened under Clinton’s watch,
and as many Democrats were involved as Republicans, Bush is blamed by the Media (and Leftists). However, when you take poll you find the people blame Clinton a lot more than bush.

Much of the foundation for the terrorist attacks was layed by Clinton. For example, not taking Osama when Sudan offered him.

Besides, the only ass Clinton could get on is one of his interns.

@Yanny:

On the other hand, Clinton doing nothing, well that works to decrease popular support to terrorists.

…? That’s about as tough as Democrats get on terrorism… :roll:

What?
1)Nothing like 9/11 happened during Clinton’s tenure.
2)“get away with it”? Clinton bombed 4 countries over a 6 month time-period. imagine if Clinton went medieval on someone’s ass.

@1.) Actually, NUMEROUS terrorist acts occured under Clinton’s watch, and many Americans died becuase of it. They didn’t get a lot of attention since the Clinton administration didn’t feel that terrorism was an important enough issue. With Clinton, the motto seemed to be more like “…just get throught the term…”, than acting with any actual real presidential duties.

Remember: the official title of the President is COMMANDER IN CHIEF. His official (and most important!) duties are to protect the safety of Americans and this country. Gay’s in the military SHOULD NOT have been at the top of his list of priorities! :roll:

@2.) Lobbing some cruise missiles is not combating terrorism. The biggest thing he hit was an Aspirin (sp?) factory.

Out of all three presidential candidates running at the time, how can you honestly say that Bush is not the best one to fight terrorism? The proof is completely stacked against you.

I will never trust the safety of this country to the hands of a liberal.

Except no.
They said they were studying it, and considering their response.
All the Arab states said that they were sure Sadam would accept it

You’re right.

a couple of months can be enough time to light any fire…

Hmm…
8 years…
or…
a couple months…

…which president do you think had more impact leading up the events of 9/11?

@Deviant:Scripter:

@Yanny:

On the other hand, Clinton doing nothing, well that works to decrease popular support to terrorists.

…? That’s about as tough as Democrats get on terrorism… :roll:

What?
1)Nothing like 9/11 happened during Clinton’s tenure.
2)“get away with it”? Clinton bombed 4 countries over a 6 month time-period. imagine if Clinton went medieval on someone’s ass.

@1.) Actually, NUMEROUS terrorist acts occured under Clinton’s watch, and many Americans died becuase of it. They didn’t get a lot of attention since the Clinton administration didn’t feel that terrorism was an important enough issue. With Clinton, the motto seemed to be more like “…just get throught the term…”, than acting with any actual real presidential duties.

Remember: the official title of the President is COMMANDER IN CHIEF. His official (and most important!) duties are to protect the safety of Americans and this country. Gay’s in the military SHOULD NOT have been at the top of his list of priorities! :roll:

@2.) Lobbing some cruise missiles is not combating terrorism. The biggest thing he hit was an Aspirin (sp?) factory.

Out of all three presidential candidates running at the time, how can you honestly say that Bush is not the best one to fight terrorism? The proof is completely stacked against you.

I will never trust the safety of this country to the hands of a liberal.

ironically enough, a liberal government should in theory do fewer stupid things to piss off other nations and go war-mongering about, pissing everyone else off, thereby less likely to require increased safety in the country. Like if i’m at the park, am i going to want to pick on the kid minding his own business, playing quietly with his sister, or am i going to want to pick on the one that’s tearing up all hell, poking at me with a stick, abusing his sister and the other kids? (am i the only non-American who sees it like this?)
Then again, i’m of the school that “the American president is far too important a position to be decided on by Americans”.

ironically enough, a liberal government should in theory do fewer stupid things to piss off other nations and go war-mongering about, pissing everyone else off, thereby less likely to require increased safety in the country. Like if i’m at the park, am i going to want to pick on the kid minding his own business, playing quietly with his sister, or am i going to want to pick on the one that’s tearing up all hell, poking at me with a stick, abusing his sister and the other kids? (am i the only non-American who sees it like this?)
Then again, i’m of the school that “the American president is far too important a position to be decided on by Americans”.

First of all, we can do little to piss off terrorists or we can do a lot to piss off terrorists. It makes little difference. They are mad at our way of life. They are mad at the amneties that we have. They are mad at the opportunities that we are provided. Unless you’re going to change the entire American way of life, you’re NEVER going to stop the hatred of our country.
The middle eastern countries that breed the most terrorism are a lot more screwed up than simply “blaming” the United States for thier troubles. Why are children being brought and taught to hate Americans in their schools? Why are teenagers being armed with weapons in the streets to fight each other? These people need to take responsibility for themselves, and change their problems from within. It’s simply too easy to blame the United States for their hatred of us.

Well, I’d take exception to your “situation” that you put forth. Would you seriously pick on the kid in the park with the weapon, knowing full well that he will retaliate with that weapon?

There’s more than just waging war that demonstrates whether you’re serious about national security. For example, it was the liberals who demanded a nuclear “freeze” during the Cold War. They thought that if we just stopped arming ourself, and trusted that Russia wouldn’t attack, then we’d come out alive. Hmmm… :roll:

ironically enough, a liberal government should in theory do fewer stupid things to piss off other nations and go war-mongering about, pissing everyone else off, thereby less likely to require increased safety in the country.

the only reason it seems this way is that liberals (i.e. Democrats) are too busy pushing their economic and socialistic policies. they don’t have time to tick off the others because they want everyone to be “equal.” And their definition of “equal” is not that of equal opportunity. they don’t believe in having those with less work to get more, so they take it from those who earn it.

@cystic:

once again i’m agreeing w/ F_alk.
Wow, this may be a trend as long as we do not discuss religion.

lol ….
maybe we should have a look for otehr things we disagree on :)

@Deviant:Scripter:

a couple of months can be enough time to light any fire…

Hmm…
8 years…
or…
a couple months…

…which president do you think had more impact leading up the events of 9/11?

I think GWB.
I am looking for a country where a new head of state after a short time started a war, having a “peaceful” head of state? …. I guess we can find some ancient examples, but i am too lazy to look for that.

@Deviant:Scripter:

First of all, we can do little to piss off terrorists or we can do a lot to piss off terrorists. It makes little difference. They are mad at our way of life. They are mad at the amneties that we have. They are mad at the opportunities that we are provided. Unless you’re going to change the entire American way of life, you’re NEVER going to stop the hatred of our country.

This is nonsense….
If Third Reich Germany had not invaded Poland, Hitler would have ruled for a long, long time…

The middle eastern countries that breed the most terrorism are a lot more screwed up than simply “blaming” the United States for thier troubles. Why are children being brought and taught to hate Americans in their schools? Why are teenagers being armed with weapons in the streets to fight each other? These people need to take responsibility for themselves, and change their problems from within. It’s simply too easy to blame the United States for their hatred of us.

What was the christian saying with “seeding wind” and “harvesting storm”?

For example, it was the liberals who demanded a nuclear “freeze” during the Cold War. They thought that if we just stopped arming ourself, and trusted that Russia wouldn’t attack, then we’d come out alive. Hmmm… :roll:

Well, did you come out alive? Does that disprove them, that their way wouldnot have worked?

@dIfrenT:

they don’t have time to tick off the others because they want everyone to be “equal.” And their definition of “equal” is not that of equal opportunity. they don’t believe in having those with less work to get more, so they take it from those who earn it.

Is “equal opportunity” to give the dwarf a ladder so he can reach the apples in the tree???

@Deviant:Scripter:

ironically enough, a liberal government should in theory do fewer stupid things to piss off other nations and go war-mongering about, pissing everyone else off, thereby less likely to require increased safety in the country. Like if i’m at the park, am i going to want to pick on the kid minding his own business, playing quietly with his sister, or am i going to want to pick on the one that’s tearing up all hell, poking at me with a stick, abusing his sister and the other kids? (am i the only non-American who sees it like this?)
Then again, i’m of the school that “the American president is far too important a position to be decided on by Americans”.

First of all, we can do little to piss off terrorists or we can do a lot to piss off terrorists. It makes little difference. They are mad at our way of life. They are mad at the amneties that we have. They are mad at the opportunities that we are provided. Unless you’re going to change the entire American way of life, you’re NEVER going to stop the hatred of our country.
The middle eastern countries that breed the most terrorism are a lot more screwed up than simply “blaming” the United States for thier troubles. Why are children being brought and taught to hate Americans in their schools? Why are teenagers being armed with weapons in the streets to fight each other? These people need to take responsibility for themselves, and change their problems from within. It’s simply too easy to blame the United States for their hatred of us.

Well, I’d take exception to your “situation” that you put forth. Would you seriously pick on the kid in the park with the weapon, knowing full well that he will retaliate with that weapon?

There’s more than just waging war that demonstrates whether you’re serious about national security. For example, it was the liberals who demanded a nuclear “freeze” during the Cold War. They thought that if we just stopped arming ourself, and trusted that Russia wouldn’t attack, then we’d come out alive. Hmmm… :roll:

The situation of the Arab countries reminds me of the anti-bellum (I think that’s what it’s called) south. The south was still very backward in comparisson to the nroth and the rest of the world which eventually led to the Civil War. The problem is that the north was dragging the south along, but the south hadnt reached the point that the north was it. It hadnt developed like the north had. The same is with the Arab countries. They are being dragged into the modern era, when they are still in their middle ages. I think that is one of the main sources of terrorism. The Arab states for the most part havent reached what the rest of the world (mostly) has and in their view it is scary andeven a threat to their way of life. What you dont understand can scare you. Classic xenophobia.

@F_alk:

@dIfrenT:

they don’t have time to tick off the others because they want everyone to be “equal.” And their definition of “equal” is not that of equal opportunity. they don’t believe in having those with less work to get more, so they take it from those who earn it.

Is “equal opportunity” to give the dwarf a ladder so he can reach the apples in the tree???

Your point exactly, F_alk?
I guess that pretty much is equal opportunity, but i’m not sure if i’m reading sarcasm into that that isn’t there. Equal opportunity gives everyone a chance to better him/herself. If people are too lazy to do it for themselves, why should the government make us support the bums? I can understand helping out those who really can’t fend for themselves, but it’s not the government’s job to do things that the people can do for themselves. That’s what makes big government, which makes people mad. People have lost the initiative to help others over the years because they gave the responsibility to the government. And I’m guessing we all know how responsible the government is, right? Equality is what the Democrats typically tout as one of their main goals. But they mean that everyone should share everything else, so no one is better off than anyone else. A basically socialistic policy. Our current welfare system is an example. There are people on it who aren’t motivated to get jobs because they’re getting practically free money. Granted, they’ve tried to reform it, but it’s not enough.
In short, equal opportunity and equality are not the same. The former takes initiative and responsibility while all the latter requires is laziness and the ability to sponge off other people.

I am convinced that terrorism (as we know it) is a caused mainly by our support for two countries. Most of it comes from our support for Saudi Arabia. That regime is oppresive and rich. The ruling families are billionares, but the rest of their country are in extreme poverty. They only stay in power because of American weapons used to stifle rebellions.

The second country is Israel. No need to elaborate there.

Yea, I’ll probably agree with you about Saudi Arabia. Although the only concern that I would have in disbanding from their alliance is that not supporting that regime could lead to radical groups running the country, similar to Afganhistan. Just a thought… :-?

@dIfrenT:

@F_alk:

Is “equal opportunity” to give the dwarf a ladder so he can reach the apples in the tree???

Your point exactly, F_alk?
I guess that pretty much is equal opportunity, but i’m not sure if i’m reading sarcasm into that that isn’t there. Equal opportunity gives everyone a chance to better him/herself. If people are too lazy to do it for themselves, why should the government make us support the bums?
I can understand helping out those who really can’t fend for themselves, but it’s not the government’s job to do things that the people can do for themselves.

how can you reach equal opportunity, when money buys amon other things education, better lawyers, less taxes to pay …and did i mention education?..
If you are filthy rich, there is no way not to stay filthy rich or become even richer… if you are poor, ther is no way to get out of there, except you are extremely talented in some sports or go criminal.
(which many of the rich are effectively, by avoiding their responsibilities, taxes, buying politicians, and bending the laws)

… Equality is what the Democrats typically tout as one of their main goals. But they mean that everyone should share everything else, so no one is better off than anyone else. A basically socialistic policy.

Not really. What you describe is what most people have been told to believe about socialism.

…In short, equal opportunity and equality are not the same. The former takes initiative and responsibility while all the latter requires is laziness and the ability to sponge off other people.

Well, to get back to the dwarf and the apple tree:
equal opportunity is not saying the dwarf and the giant have equal opportunity in reaching the apples: they just have not. It would be, if oyu gave the dwarf a ladder. If there is no ladder around, then the giant should give half his apples to the dwarf, who should give half of whatever he can pick that the giant can’t reach in exchange….

Well, to get back to the dwarf and the apple tree:
equal opportunity is not saying the dwarf and the giant have equal opportunity in reaching the apples: they just have not. It would be, if oyu gave the dwarf a ladder. If there is no ladder around, then the giant should give half his apples to the dwarf, who should give half of whatever he can pick that the giant can’t reach in exchange….

Or the dwarf can kiss the giant’s butt and go find another frickin’ tree to pick. :wink:

Obviously, if the dwarf is a smaller person, then he’s not going to need as many apple’s to survive, correct? So grabbing the apple’s that he can reach probably would be sufficient in reality.

@Deviant:Scripter:

Or the dwarf can kiss the giant’s butt and go find another frickin’ tree to pick. :wink:

Obviously, if the dwarf is a smaller person, then he’s not going to need as many apple’s to survive, correct? So grabbing the apple’s that he can reach probably would be sufficient in reality.

Your answer is meant as a joke, isn’t it?

I think it would be inappropriate to expect the giant to give the dwarf half of his apples. Certainly the dwarf might pick something that the giant can’t and barter with it, but i’m guessing that the giant has a greater need for more than half the apples (due to calories consumed/unit weight) than the dwarf who would need fewer apples.
The wealthy need more lawyers - they are more likely to get sued because that’s where the money is. In terms of education, at least in Canada there are all sorts of ways to make it without having wealthy parents - it just requires working harder. My parents didn’t help me very much financially with my education (i.e. i worked my ass off in a factory for 5 summers and christmas holidays), but i’m doing ok anyway, and i have the ability to do what ever i want if i wish to (i believe). Meanwhile the wealthy have more of an impetus to get a higher education and to perform better. Maybe they have “better genes”, they’ve grown up in an environment where they learn how to push, how to succeed, how to work. I grew up in an atmostphere where you didn’t become afraid of hard work but you “get angry with it”.
Is it fair that the wealthy tend to stay wealthy? I don’t think that fairness has anything to do with it. They might stay that way, unless they’re stupid, then evolution will relegate them to the bottom of the heap. Meanwhile i’ve heard to many “rags-to-riches” stories from friends and acquaintances to feel very sorry for that dwarf.

@cystic:

I think it would be inappropriate to expect the giant to give the dwarf half of his apples. Certainly the dwarf might pick something that the giant can’t and barter with it, but i’m guessing that the giant has a greater need for more than half the apples (due to calories consumed/unit weight) than the dwarf who would need fewer apples.

sigh … this was thought as an hand-waving example, more a saying… a metaphor! … SIGH

In terms of education, at least in Canada there are all sorts of ways to make it without having wealthy parents - it just requires working harder. … Maybe they have “better genes”, they’ve grown up in an environment where they learn how to push, how to succeed, how to work. I grew up in an atmostphere where you didn’t become afraid of hard work but you “get angry with it”.

I just read about a survey in germany about the chances to get a higher degree when your parents have one or none… and the selection starts early in germany (opposed to say Finland, which was used to compare, where the selection takes place about 5 years later)…
frightening results: it seems that over here we have to change that our schools try to select (esp. that early, when a lot can happen)…
So, i guess it is both, parents (and the climate they create, do they encourage you to ask questions, do they argue/discuss in a proper way, so you can learn that, do they promote curiousity …etc…) and schools (giving you the same chance regardless of the money you can spend, trying to promote whatever talents you have, as everyone has a talent)…

Is it fair that the wealthy tend to stay wealthy? I don’t think that fairness has anything to do with it. They might stay that way, unless they’re stupid, then evolution will relegate them to the bottom of the heap. Meanwhile i’ve heard to many “rags-to-riches” stories from friends and acquaintances to feel very sorry for that dwarf.

There is a difference: If someone is “mediocre”, then his status won’t change much. So, to get up, you have to be “better than the rest”, to go down, you have to be “extremely stupid”…
This is unfair: You might be better than many many rich-born, but still they will stay “atop” of you, because of their advantage by birth. You have to work unproportionaly (that is the key word) harder to get “up there”