Natural Selection. I like that.
Or more traditionally:
Treason.
Treason.
Hmm. I looked up the definition of Treason, and I guess this would qualify under the ""aid and comfort"" clause. Although I don''t think it''ll be neccessary to prosecute somebody who volunteers for bomb-catching.
But I did get to thinking about something. If we''re going to invade Iraq, I''d like the president to at least have the balls to delcare war.
Oh wait, according to the constitution he can''t do that, the congress is supposed to. But they abdicated their responsibility. I swear, our government is filled with a bunch of half-wit, money-grubbing, alcoholic, substance abusing pussies. Oh, and most of ''em are laywers too.
The UK (and US) is not a direct democracy. You elect leaders and they lead. If you don''t like them don''t re-elect them.
This is true but it still doesn''t look good to other countries.
(not that the UK has any credible opposition to Tony Blairs government as our opposition party couldn''t find it''s ass with directions, a map and a GPS handheld! )
Interesting, i leave the post for few hours and i come back and it''s 3 pages long....
As far as I can see that we are stuck in a lose-lose situation, any action be taking by us will result just in that!
Plus, even though I don''t support N.Korea, same time I can not blame them for what they are doing... I mean look at US, we are arming our selves and developing even more weapons of mass destruction... so how can we expect everyone else to disarm if we are doing exactly opposite!
We are reducing the number of nuclear weapons we have.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/new...
I''ve posted this before and I know its not confirmed and yes the US might be reducing the number of nukes overall but it''s (probably) still developing new versions of lower yield.
Don''t put North Korea on the same moral plane as the United States.
Why not?
Ok,...
you know i dont often agree with the capitol hill gang (oft made fun of by dana carvey on snl). i can help but think that george bush with the right words given to him could come away with a huge coup in world diplomacy. the leader of the capitol hill gang, mcglachlan (sp butchered), said that bush could back away from war with iraq and not lose face. the rest of the panel disagreed but i agree. the crisis in n korea should take precedence over saddam. saddam needs to go. saddam needs to go without us spouting how we will bring peace, love and joy in a new democratic iraq. BUT, bush could take a step back and curry more world favor by renouncing the characterization that hes a bully. world favor IS important because then leaders that we want to help look good can look good supporting us. we will call in those favors later.
im thinking a speach along the lines of something like this:
as americans we believe in doing right by the world, bringing justice to the oppressed and hope to the unfortunate. we do not seek war. we do not rush to conflict that will hurt hundreds of thousands of people. saddam hussein is an evil tyrant with numerous crimes against humanity and violations without regard to the stability and peacefulness of his neighboring countries. the united states will now display something many may have thought we have long forgot in our race to become a dominant force in world politics, patience.
the united states and several of its allies would rather see a more stern immediate solution to resolve the threat iraq possesses. world concerns and other issues may deem that what is best for the planet earth may lie with patience and a strengthened, deliberate watchful eye.
saddam hussein may see this as an opportunity to enhance his meddly and increase coersive political games. it IS and opportunity. it is and opportunity to make good on his word from 12 years ago, if only for the betterment of his people. should saddam again spurn the wishes of the world community, he will only further the worlds resolve towards forceful compliance.
That would be a great speech(matter of fact it would show a level of maturity and good decision making I feel we''ve havent really seen from bush), but it would also be good if he rolled up to my work with a box full of krispy kremes. I know which one I expect to have happen first.
[/url] http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/news... [url]
is a link to the words of a few of the american human shields
i was considering ending my speech with this:
saddam, the rope has already tightened as far as it can. the lever that drops the floor from your feet is a burden under its own weight. the world community is doing what it can do to keep that lever from sealing your people''s fate with yours. do the right thing!
Maybe it is just me, but it seems the majority of nations would be behind the plans to invade iraq, if your government could give some good reasons and answers to several topics such as:
1. Why now? The sanctions against Iraq are in action for how long? 12 years? Up until 1998 inspectors were in the country to seek and destroy weapons of mass destruction (they still would be in the country if there were not spies within the inspector comittee). Let''s even assume the point of your government is correct that says Sadam still possesses large amounts of bio and chemical weapons. Why not intensify scanning the country via satellite resources or drones? If he still has these weapons they will show up sooner or later at a transport or something similiar. So a strengthened inspector team would be fully sufficient. But the US insists on invading now, even though the Iraq is no real threat for them.
2. What are the consequences? What is planned after Saddam is expelled? To date the US government has failed to deliver a decent plan of how to stabilize the region during and after the invasion. Bush talks about democatizing Iraq. How will he do that?
Currently the Iraq consists of two major ethnic fractions, the Kurds in the North and the Shiits (sp? German word is Schiiten) in the South. The regime is controlled though by an ethnic minority that also forms Hussein''s Baath party. Who exactly should get in charge after the invasion? All three fractions have already stated that they do not want any US military protectorate. The Shiits even threatened to revolt in that case.
If they give power to the Shiits the Kurds surely would not like that. Then they would be faced with two fronts of people who prosecute them. The Turks in the North and the Shiits from the South. Further the Kurds have concerns that Turkey might just use the Iraq invasion to strike against them to get rid of them once and for all. This is to be taken seriously as well. How would the US react on an ethnic cleansing of the Kurds by the Turkey?
If the Kurds are given the power, both Turkey and the Shiits will object. It is expected that the Shiits may revolt in that case as well. Turkey fears that the Kurds try to establish their own autonomous state, which would threaten their borderline.
That leaves the minority fraction. But that could as well mean that the next head of the nation is another Saddam Hussein, because the fraction is very radical.
All in all the situation does not look that good. And without a detailed plan it would be complete madness to invade in that region without a well thought out plan for stabilisation. I gave just two concerns, but it shows why the majority of the nations is very cautious when it comes to invading Iraq. There currently is a good percentage that the situation might just get out of hand once the invasion starts.
?!? We don''t have a bio and chem weapon program. We are reducing the number of nuclear weapons we have.
Not true. The Anthrax letters emerged from your very own Bio labs. That is fact. Fact is also that your government denied UN inspectors access to its bio labs for several years now.
The French, Germans, and Russians all have deep business ties to Saddam.
Details please, we need details!
Details please, we need details!
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030...
This is pretty basic info on mainly the german and french (russia''s also mentioned) business links to Iraq and it makes for some interesing reading
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...
And this is a bit more on Russias oil deals with Iraq.
Not to question the ''credibility'' of the Washington Times, but we all know their take on the situation. In addition to that it''s quite funny to click on that link and the first thing you get to see is something like a ''Boycott France'' banner which they''re obviously tolerating. Tsk tsk.
I''ve recently read another study which indicated that especially the Russian and German connections are a lot smaller than they are portrayed to be. Stating that a country like Germany, which has a LOT MORE connections to the US than to the Iraq is doing this for business reasons is a bit ridiculous as effects of only minor damage done to the US connections could outweigh the other ones easily. Especially since the US government has hinted at economic consequences. As for pre-1991 numbers:
German firms were the market leaders in supplying sensitive dual-use technology to Iraq in the years before the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and they have been trying to boost civilian commercial contracts in more recent times.
Khidir Hamza, an Iraqi defector who once headed Saddam''s nuclear weapons program, recently called Germany ""the hub of Iraq''s military purchases in the 1980s.""
That''s funny as well. I wouldn''t be surprised if the US provided more equipment in the 80s than Russia, Germany and France did together.
If we did, then why are the Iraqis using Kalashnikovs and SCUD launchers rather than M16s and HIMARS?
True, true, the Iraq hasn''t been _recently_ (thats is: last 30 years) been supplied by other countries other than France (officially) and Germany (illegaly, I think).
</drunk btw, damn soccer matches always end in a rush of alcohol to the head>
Not true. The Anthrax letters emerged from your very own Bio labs. That is fact. Fact is also that your government denied UN inspectors access to its bio labs for several years now.
If by ""bio labs"" you mean ""sheep farms."" One good patch of sheep dropping can give you enough anthrax to send a deadly-gram.
The UN has no right to invade our national sovereignty. We have not signed a peace treaty saying that they could.
Has Iraq?
Anyway, US Biological weapons in the past. The US has no chemical weapons program? Don''t get me started, every toxic de-foliant and riot control agent is classified a chemical weapons. US Chemical weapons in the past, and I don''t believe they have totally abolished either of them.
I disagree. We have fourty nations on our side now and I believe the ones who are not really have closed off their minds.
Not correct. Its 34. That makes 156 against you in the UN. Also take a look please at the supporting nations:
Albania, Armenia, Australia, Aserbeidschan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estland, Georgia, GB, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordania, Katar, Croatia, Kuwait, Lettland, Litauen, Mazedonien, Oman, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi-Arabia, Slowakei, Slowenia, Spaini, Tschech Republic, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Ungarn.
Now lets classify that list:
1. The big ones in there: GB, Spain, Italy, Australia.
For Australia: While PM Howard is proposing to fight terrorism, the export of Grain to Iraq is 12% of the pa generation.
Spain and Italy might get overthrown by the strong pressure from the population on the streets. Aznar''s management of the oil-tanker accident consisted of going skiing while the coast region was faced economic bankrupticy. Very reliable partner I''d say. And now he even acts against the will of 90% of the population of his country. Elections are not far off as well, so it seems we might not be seeing him for long.
Berlusconi is more concerned about his businesses than international treaties. That is the guy who passed a law that allowed him to evade condemnation before any Italian court just by calling that court biased.
When it comes to real support, you cannot expect money from them (both are heavily subsidized by the EU). And if they support you with troops is doubtful as well. After all both of these countries ackknowledged the international court in Den Haag, which might get them arrested afterwards.
2. The unimportant. States that are far away from the conflict centre or that won''t have to pay a dime for their opinion. Also they are far too small to bring in any meaningful supplies, since they heavily rely on the EU and US payments:
Albania, Slowakei, Croatia, Slowenia, Mazedonia, Gergia, Armenia, Aserbaidschan, Estland, Denmark, Ungarn, Rumania, Lettland, Litauen, Portugal.
Their main interest is getting more funds from the US or EU for their support or an US base for economic reasons. Some of these are already leaving the coalition, like the Tschechs.
3. Poland, Japan, Israel, Turkey. The first three will stand to their word, but except for Israel I doubt they will help you much. Israel has their own interests in the region though (exeplling the Palestines). This counts even more for Turkey (claiming north Iraq to get rid of the Kurds once and for all)
4. States in the region. They don''t have any choice. Oil Export is their main income. Additionally nobody is really defending Iraq, so for them it surely is safer to got with the US position.
Also take a lot at this neat article (pdf):
http://www.ips-dc.org/coalition.htm
I must say it seems that this organisation is biased, but still they give some valid points. Interesting read.
Another intersting article about Resolution 1441:
http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis...
The French, Germans, and Russians all have deep business ties to Saddam.
As if the US doesn''t. All western corporations have under the hand deals with these nations. With or without gov knowledge is another thing. What I know is that the German government is very eager to cut down these deals at least in the weapon sector wherever they identify them.
That''s not what inspectors are suppose to do. THey are not there to investigage anything but to confirm. They are bean counters. Inspections have never really worked. The only time we found large caches of weapons is after defections. Not because of inspectors.
Sorry to say that, but I stronly believe the inspections would work better if your very president would not state every two days that he is going to strike no matter what. After all who is willing to disarm when faced with a 200k army at their front door ready to strike any second.
Litauen
I think thats Lithuania in English Not to be nitpicky and all but I actually got a full score-point detracted for my English-written history thesis by using Dutch geographical names instead of English.
Not Saddam. There wouldn''t be any disarming if it weren''t for the troops on the borders. Have you noticed how Saddam plays the rope-a-dope game?
I noticed. But I must also say there is a big difference between threatening to invade the country and moving several divisions on the border and claiming to invade no matter what. In that situation nobody would fully disarm their own country. Also claiming that he has to complete the disarming within a week like in the proposed next UN resolution by the US and GB is completely off base. There is no way he could fulfill that, even if he wanted to.
I think thats Lithuania in English Not to be nitpicky and all but I actually got a full score-point detracted for my English-written history thesis by using Dutch geographical names instead of English.
Ouch. Thanks for letting me know. I was too lazy to look all the names up :D.
What part of Washington State do you live in? I didn''t realize you had seceded from the Union up there?I think you just called me Canadian...I will not stand for that sir.
Your attempt at McCarthyism was appreciated though. But I hardly think expressing a concern for the US role in global politics and a desire to try to uphold the values our country has developed over the last couple centuries, cause to be branded a traitor.(And besides I dont think secession is a valid way for states to settle disputes anymore. Back in the Civil War half the reason the southern states were seceeding in the first place was because they believed the constitution allowed them that option. There are cases of states threating secession all over the place before the Civil War, but I cant think of one since(anybody?))
(Course if you were just joking then haha )
Hasn''t Texas offered to succeed a number of times?
Pages