sexual_chocolate Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 I can't believe the reaction at the UN yesterday. The US is quickly losing its allies! Here's for Hope against Hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 (edited) The socialist debate society finally proves it's own irrelevance. Time to do what needs to be done and move on, UN support or no UN support. What are they gonna do, threaten us with talk, talk, and more talk? Pass another resolution and threaten us with waiting 12 years to do nothing about it? The US has done the heavy lifting on nearly every UN action everywhere in the world, when it's time to help *us* out, well, by golly, it's just too much. Stuff 'em, they can't, and won't, do anything about it anyway. Oops, forgot, they might pass a resolution! Edited February 15, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 We have done the "heavy lifting" because the actions usually benefit US business interests. " The business of America is Business." Herbert Hoover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 sexual_chocolate said: I can't believe the reaction at the UN yesterday. The US is quickly losing its allies! You were surprised? How many European nations stepped up to the plate to prevent 200,000 deaths on their southern doorstep? Answer: 0. As if China has any moral authority. Or Germany, or France, for that matter. The whole thing is a tragic play, and Bush was an idiot to try to get UN support at any time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 merely a formality - let the games begin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Did Clinton get, or even seek, UN approval for his boming adventure in Belgrade? Where were the protesters back then? Where was Sexual Chocolate and DFA? Where was their outrage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 (edited) Well the Europeans might have been too wimpy to get into a fight, but they knew those Serbs had it comming. Edited February 16, 2003 by AlpineK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 "We have done the "heavy lifting" because the actions usually benefit US business interests." Does that mean we didn't do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 It means our politicians do things for those who contribute $ to their campaigns. The bottom line in the US is the "Bottom Line" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 The bottom line in the US is the "Bottom Line" This is my bottom line. I'm into climbing and making money; especially making money so I can climb. GW needs to quit fucking around with Iraq and think about the US economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacierdog Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 So we should ignore Iraq because our economy is on a downslide? How would that fix anything? I'm asking seriously, because I really don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 read some of my other posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 16, 2003 Author Share Posted February 16, 2003 glacierdog said: So we should ignore Iraq because our economy is on a downslide? How would that fix anything? I'm asking seriously, because I really don't know. Allowing the UN weapons inspections to continue is not ignoring the problem. Israel poses a much greater threat to world stability than does Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacierdog Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 You know, if the inspectors were allowed to continue unhindered, and Saddam dropped dead of instant heart failure, I'd agree with you. His son would have to go too. That guy is a lunatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 He is not the only lunatic around. Anyhow, you still need to make the case for him being an immediate danger. Until you do so, there is no need for war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 16, 2003 Author Share Posted February 16, 2003 Glacierdog: We can't go kicking out every leader we disagree with, agreed? In the Saudi regime (our ally!), public executions occur, I believe amputation as punishment occurs, de-tongueings, public stonings, etc.. Everything we accuse Saddam of doing. In Egypt, the regime (our ally!) is accused of numerous human rights abuses. In pakistan (our ally!), Musharref is accused of multiple human rights abuses, including the torture of the president he illegally ousted! Did you know that in Iran, the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected leader, replacing him with a dictator (the Shah), who was then a leading human rights abuser? Ever heard of Pinochet? He killed THOUSANDS of his own people, all with the backing of the US. We turn a blind eye to Syria, and now we support a dictator in I believe Tajikistan, who is erecting statues of himself in public areas, and is accused of multiple human rights abuses. I can go on and on.... In Afghanistan, we have allowed the warlords to take back the countryside, with all the resultant chaos (rape, robbery, murder, extortion, bribery, etc.), all unchecked.What do you thin kwe accomplished there? I'll tell you: Nothing! So as bad as Saddam might be- and he IS bad- don't for a second believe that we are trying to go in because he's a bad guy; that has NOTHING to do with it. If he was supporting our cause, he'd be back on our side instantly, no matter WHAT his human rights record was. Remember, he WAS our ally through the '80's, even shaking Rumsfeld's hand. Reagan even gave him an old revolver as a gift, if I remember right. His human rights record was actively worse back then. Shoot, was else can I say? I think the record speaks for itself. Now tell me, what do you think about all this, if you accept what I say as fact? (Investigate it all on your own. I think you owe it to yourself, especially if you're gonna be fighting for these crooks.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Billygoat said: We have done the "heavy lifting" because the actions usually benefit US business interests. " The business of America is Business." Herbert Hoover "The bidness of bidness is bidness." Attributed to George Bush by Molly Ivans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 AlpineK said: The bottom line in the US is the "Bottom Line" This is my bottom line. I'm into climbing and making money; especially making money so I can climb. GW needs to quit fucking around with Iraq and think about the US economy. Damn straight! Why aren't we going after those corporate theives that have really ruined our economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacierdog Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 SC, I didn't mean to say that we're going in there because he is a bad guy. I just meant it as a bonus. I can't begin to comprehend the complexity of our relationships with other countries. I have heard of all the things you spoke of (God bless the History channel), and I agree that we have done some things that don't make any sense to me. I would really like to know EVERYTHING the Bush administration has on Iraq. If you ask me, there is a whole lot unsaid. The pieces don't fit together to make a complete picture. And I know Colin Powel wouldn't back this unless he had the whole picture. But back to the other human rights violators. I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty certain that they aren't rallying their troops to the tune of "glorified suicide." Many of these nations keep an open line of diplomacy with us. This kind of ticks me off, right here. They continue to glad hand us, so we look the other way. The thing is, their internal problems, for the most part, stay internal. Iraq stumbled over that line a decade ago. It has been on probation, and so far has been anything but rehabilitated. I think I should clarify something real quick. I'm not a war dog. If the situation in Iraq can be resolved without war, I'm all for it. I'll be there. If chemicals get involved, I'll be wearing a gas mask and MOPP gear in 100+ degree weather. I don't want war. Inspectors are getting more cooperation now. Do you suppose that's influenced by the 5 carrier groups parked next door? I would say so. We are building up, because the time for bullshit is over. Capitulate entirely, or we will let slip the dogs of war. Afghanistan: That's still a work in progress. All the things that are happening now were happening before we stepped foot over there. Only now it's not government sponsored. How can we hope to change it overnight? It's not an easy thing. But it's still worth trying. Shit, my head hurts. I had my second anthrax vaccination this week, and I'm sore as mofo. I'll think more on this and get back to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 (edited) nm Edited February 16, 2003 by trask Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 "It means our politicians do things for those who contribute $ to their campaigns. The bottom line in the US is the "Bottom Line"" So does that mean we didn't do the heavy lifting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Did Iain sic you on me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 not at all, i'd just like a straight answer. none of your comments refute we've actually done all the heavy lifting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 sexual_chocolate said: Glacierdog: We can't go kicking out every leader we disagree with, agreed? In the Saudi regime (our ally!), public executions occur, I believe amputation as punishment occurs, de-tongueings, public stonings, etc.. Everything we accuse Saddam of doing. In Egypt, the regime (our ally!) is accused of numerous human rights abuses. In pakistan (our ally!), Musharref is accused of multiple human rights abuses, including the torture of the president he illegally ousted! Did you know that in Iran, the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected leader, replacing him with a dictator (the Shah), who was then a leading human rights abuser? Ever heard of Pinochet? He killed THOUSANDS of his own people, all with the backing of the US. We turn a blind eye to Syria, and now we support a dictator in I believe Tajikistan, who is erecting statues of himself in public areas, and is accused of multiple human rights abuses. I can go on and on.... In Afghanistan, we have allowed the warlords to take back the countryside, with all the resultant chaos (rape, robbery, murder, extortion, bribery, etc.), all unchecked.What do you thin kwe accomplished there? I'll tell you: Nothing! So as bad as Saddam might be- and he IS bad- don't for a second believe that we are trying to go in because he's a bad guy; that has NOTHING to do with it. If he was supporting our cause, he'd be back on our side instantly, no matter WHAT his human rights record was. Remember, he WAS our ally through the '80's, even shaking Rumsfeld's hand. Reagan even gave him an old revolver as a gift, if I remember right. His human rights record was actively worse back then. Shoot, was else can I say? I think the record speaks for itself. Now tell me, what do you think about all this, if you accept what I say as fact? (Investigate it all on your own. I think you owe it to yourself, especially if you're gonna be fighting for these crooks.) SC, Should Hugo Chavez step down because 500,000 citizens rally regularly in Caracass and refuse to go to work because they know their efforts are for naught under his creeping socilaist model? Do you really think there will EVER be free and fair elections under his rule? Sure, he was "elected". Being elected means nothing. It's the "stepping down" part that your favorite socialist leaders seem to have difficulty doing. Castro was "elected". When's the next election, SC? Saudi Arabia: I agree. They're bastards. Pakistan: Musharref led a fairly bloodless coup after the mentally unstable president there tried to have him (and a planeload of innocents) killed by rufusing to let their plane land while it ran out of fuel. Syria: Do you support our "meddling" there now? WTF are you talking about?? Egypt: Our ties aren't that close. Iran: They'll come around if we leave 'em alone. Afghanistan: You don't know any more than anyone else here. Please stop acting like you do. Chile/Argentina: I believe Peron and Pinochet may have saved more lives than they took. I'm not condoning their methods, but what if Columbia and Peru had taken similar action. Wherever communists take hold, death on a massive scale follows. (With the possible exception of Nicaragua, as you once pointed out.) Now Venezuela, and, I predict, Brazil have very dark days ahead. No doubt you'll blame America for this at some point too. The cold war is over. Both we and the Soviets (and the Chinese) did some awful things to other peoples to be sure. Maybe it is time you stopped judging America by the actions it was forced to take to protect us from the threat of totalitarianism. The proxy wars we fought were often horrible, but necessary, and I stand by every action our government took to protect me and my family from communism. This includes Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Angola, etc. etc. The only exception was at the onset of WWII. We should NEVER have sided with Stalin against Germany. They were both equally evil IMHO. Roosevelt surely made a deal with the devil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 16, 2003 Author Share Posted February 16, 2003 I don't have time to address anything beyond your Chavez comment: He was elected, and his constitution obliges him to serve out his term. Why on earth would you have a problem with that? Are you saying that if enough people started rallying for Bush's ouster, he should simply step down? Don't be silly! There are constitutional guide-lines here, just as there are in Venezuela. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.