-
Welcome to DNForum.com - Domain Investor Forum, Free Domain Marketplace and a community for 45+ domain pros
If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the oldest global domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 45,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, using our free in-house built tools, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.
Bush to be arrested?
- Thread starter beatz
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2002
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 0
The U.S. has hypocracies - just as every nation and every person on this earth does - it's human nature. We may call a car going slower than we are in front of us on the highway a slow moron, and the guy on our ass an impatient moron. It's just that when your profile is much larger and your decisions vast, you get caught in them more often.
But that is not really the point. The point is, who is willing to risk the lives of their people and probably of their political career to do what they feel in the long run is the right thing.
Will getting Saddam out of Iraq save lives over the long run or cost lives?
Obviously Bush and Blair believe it will save lives in the long run. If someone would have stood up to Hitler in this fashion, there really wouldn't have been a WW2 and think of how many lives could have been saved there.
I can hear the protesters now "Hitler has done NOTHING to our country - why should we possibly start WW2?" If someone had the guts to stop him from the start, before he committed his atrocities, many lives would have been saved.
It's a tough call and I am not sure I would have handled it the way Bush has but if you put 50 different people in his position, you would probably get 50 different opinions, all of which would probably have their detractors.
I wish France had some spine. (I really detest their lack of balls) Maybe we should invade them next and take all their wine
It's very easy to criticize decisions but if you really put yourself in the position that Bush is in, it is a very very hard place to be, no matter how you actually handle it.
But that is not really the point. The point is, who is willing to risk the lives of their people and probably of their political career to do what they feel in the long run is the right thing.
Will getting Saddam out of Iraq save lives over the long run or cost lives?
Obviously Bush and Blair believe it will save lives in the long run. If someone would have stood up to Hitler in this fashion, there really wouldn't have been a WW2 and think of how many lives could have been saved there.
I can hear the protesters now "Hitler has done NOTHING to our country - why should we possibly start WW2?" If someone had the guts to stop him from the start, before he committed his atrocities, many lives would have been saved.
It's a tough call and I am not sure I would have handled it the way Bush has but if you put 50 different people in his position, you would probably get 50 different opinions, all of which would probably have their detractors.
I wish France had some spine. (I really detest their lack of balls) Maybe we should invade them next and take all their wine
It's very easy to criticize decisions but if you really put yourself in the position that Bush is in, it is a very very hard place to be, no matter how you actually handle it.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2002
- Messages
- 2,455
- Reaction score
- 0
I think it would be interesting to know where some of you guys hail from. Why all the secrecy? I don't have a problem with people knowing where I come from. It might help explain some of your posts.
It always seems to be that a lot of the crap that flies in these forums comes from people listing nowhere as home. No pride in your homeland? Reason to hide? Come on get some guts.
It always seems to be that a lot of the crap that flies in these forums comes from people listing nowhere as home. No pride in your homeland? Reason to hide? Come on get some guts.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2002
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 0
I am from NYC
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2002
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
All I can is what are all the liberals out there gonna say WHEN saddam uses WMD ?
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2002
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
iraq has no connections with al queada - saddam killed the kurds - because they were muslim - just like bin laden>>>>
As Dennis Miller put it aptly:
You just know Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have each other on speed dial.
As Dennis Miller put it aptly:
You just know Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have each other on speed dial.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Messages
- 1,139
- Reaction score
- 0
i can assure you, the majority of Americans including myself couldn't care less what goes on in a small Dutch castle, or in Holland overall. Thats one of the luxuries of being the most powerful country in the world.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2002
- Messages
- 219
- Reaction score
- 0
I can assure you that you don't speak for a majority of Americans, please don't embarrass us by pretending you do. You speak for yourself, that's it.
Isn't it about time this thread was moved to the Lounge?
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Messages
- 1,139
- Reaction score
- 0
I speak for myself, but I also know what the majority of American citizens want right now.
And I can assure you, that the majority of American citizens don't consider the ICJ to be a legitimate court to prosecute our political leaders for their political actions. The ICJ is just one little limb on the body of the United Nations, and the majority of Americans support the war in Iraq against the wishes of the UN. Don't embarass us by making irrational statements.
And I can assure you, that the majority of American citizens don't consider the ICJ to be a legitimate court to prosecute our political leaders for their political actions. The ICJ is just one little limb on the body of the United Nations, and the majority of Americans support the war in Iraq against the wishes of the UN. Don't embarass us by making irrational statements.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,850
- Reaction score
- 10
Xcuse me,
but this court is indeed legitimated to prosecute war crimes.
And if they would prosecute your "political leaders", they would not go after them for "political actions" but war crime - note i said "if".
It's not the courts purpose to prosecute political actions that don't violate international law.
*If* those actions indeed viloate int. law, then it's a different story though..
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2002
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 0
A slight majority of Americans (55 -57%)are backing this war, but if you look at the major cities (NYC, Boston, Wash D.C., L.A), the places most likely to be targeted for retaliation, they are firmly against the prospect of war. It's easy for people in Wisconsin or Iowa or Kansas to back a war, because with the exception of people in those places who have loved one overseas, they have no real connection to what is happening. Try going to a major city and getting on a subway, eyeing every non-American with any kind of bag with them, knwoing that this war is going to make you and your city a target.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2002
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 0
To make this short and sweet, I think it's safe to assume that Bush, Blair, and the others that agree with this war - that they have legit intelligence that proves a future danger in Saddam.
The fact that UN inspectors found no WMD is beside the point. They did find materials that proved they have purchased weapons within the past 12 years (those missiles and parts) and the fact that they are slowly destroying them means nothing.
That's like catching a bank robber, finding some of the money he stole and him offering to slowly pay the bank at his leisure. If Saddam wanted to, he could have laid all 100+ missiles and had a bulldozer run over them Monster truck style!
Or, Saddam could have forgone PURCHASING the missiles at all, as per UN sanctions setup 12 years ago.
This action only puts other rogue countries on notice that their actions have potential to be policed by the UN or coalition forces.
I say Bravo.
-WC-
The fact that UN inspectors found no WMD is beside the point. They did find materials that proved they have purchased weapons within the past 12 years (those missiles and parts) and the fact that they are slowly destroying them means nothing.
That's like catching a bank robber, finding some of the money he stole and him offering to slowly pay the bank at his leisure. If Saddam wanted to, he could have laid all 100+ missiles and had a bulldozer run over them Monster truck style!
Or, Saddam could have forgone PURCHASING the missiles at all, as per UN sanctions setup 12 years ago.
This action only puts other rogue countries on notice that their actions have potential to be policed by the UN or coalition forces.
I say Bravo.
-WC-
Why are you picking on the Dutch now, draqon? Are you anti-Dutch?
If world was honest and serious about enforcing international law and consistant with it's definitions of stuff, Bush would be the #1 terrorist in the world and he'd go on trial for war crimes for what he's about to do. I for one would love to see him swinging from the gallows.
I further think that this war is showing how anti-democracy and anti-freedom the United States government is.
In the United States political system, the system is easily manipulated and ran by money and rich corporate entities. So when the United States diplomatic staff tried to reason with the rest of the world by telling them Saddam posed a direct and imminent threat and got told they were full of it, they tried to bribe some countries and threaten others into supporting our cause. Only in United Nations, enough countries had enough backbone (thanks to France) to actually say they disagreed with the philsophy, and the US didn't even bring it to a vote. I thought the spirit of democrcy was majority rule....the thing the US believes it's propagating all over the world. Well, if you took a poll of everyone in the world, if they believed Iraq was a direct threat to the US national security, or if they wanted the US to takeover Iraq, I think about 20% would support the US, and 80% would be against it. And why isn't the self-proclaimed hero-demcrasizer of the world letting majority rule? They have the biggest guns and the most money.
Also the United States government always puts forth the simpleton argument that "The terrorist hate freedom, and they want to take it away from us." As a citizen of the United States, the ONLY person who I've felt who has taken away my liberties in the past couple of years have been George Bush and John Ashcroft (and the US senate, minus Russ Feingold). The US government is the one usurping my liberty. George Orwell and J. Hoover would be proud of how Ashcroft was able to further their ideas with the use of 2003 technology.
The United States goverment, the #1 threat to democracy in the world, and the #1 threat to freedom and liberty.
If world was honest and serious about enforcing international law and consistant with it's definitions of stuff, Bush would be the #1 terrorist in the world and he'd go on trial for war crimes for what he's about to do. I for one would love to see him swinging from the gallows.
I further think that this war is showing how anti-democracy and anti-freedom the United States government is.
In the United States political system, the system is easily manipulated and ran by money and rich corporate entities. So when the United States diplomatic staff tried to reason with the rest of the world by telling them Saddam posed a direct and imminent threat and got told they were full of it, they tried to bribe some countries and threaten others into supporting our cause. Only in United Nations, enough countries had enough backbone (thanks to France) to actually say they disagreed with the philsophy, and the US didn't even bring it to a vote. I thought the spirit of democrcy was majority rule....the thing the US believes it's propagating all over the world. Well, if you took a poll of everyone in the world, if they believed Iraq was a direct threat to the US national security, or if they wanted the US to takeover Iraq, I think about 20% would support the US, and 80% would be against it. And why isn't the self-proclaimed hero-demcrasizer of the world letting majority rule? They have the biggest guns and the most money.
Also the United States government always puts forth the simpleton argument that "The terrorist hate freedom, and they want to take it away from us." As a citizen of the United States, the ONLY person who I've felt who has taken away my liberties in the past couple of years have been George Bush and John Ashcroft (and the US senate, minus Russ Feingold). The US government is the one usurping my liberty. George Orwell and J. Hoover would be proud of how Ashcroft was able to further their ideas with the use of 2003 technology.
The United States goverment, the #1 threat to democracy in the world, and the #1 threat to freedom and liberty.
You have to take a look at the BIG picture folks, and I undrstand you conservatives have a hard time doing that. Your radio talk shows are so much more simpler and having more to do with sound bytes than those hard ivy league classes.
Lets say Saddam is in material breach of 17 UN resolutions or whatever. Does that mean they get invaded, taken over, and have thousands of their innocent people killed? If just being in material breach of a UN resolution is grounds for bloody takenover, I think another Middle Eastern country friedly with the US would have been taken over many times over.
Lets look at the neocon banana republican position. Because Saddam can't account for some bio / chem weapons , therefore we take the country over, killing many innocent iraqis civillians. Ah, quite simple.....this is exactly George Bush's position. This, and....basically, because he may have some of those chemicals left (that we gave him to use, BTW), he poses a direct and immediate threat to the United States.
Since it's extremly obvious that he has no delivery system to hit anything in the US, they mention 9-11 in the same thought as Iraq over and over again, to try to backdoor responsibility to Saddam, even though that's extremly dishonest. It's possible, Saddam might give WMD to a terrorist group such as al-qaeda (it's staunch enemy). Extremly unlikely, but....thredically possible, which is what the administration grips onto like a man does dangling off a cliff. If the pretext to taking over a country, killing thousands of it's innocent civilizans (forcing a level of deaths of many 9-11s on them) is an extremly unlikely possability......it's the pretext to......take over ANY country in the world.
Which is more likely? Al-Qaeda gets WMDs from sympatheizers in the Pakistanian intelligence service, or they get them from their grave enemy Iraq? So lets take over Pakistan!
Which is more likely....Al-Qaeda buys WMDs from some old russian scientist, who since the fall of the USSR, has been very poor, or Iraq? Lets take over Russia then!
It's POSSIBLE almost any country in the world could hook up al-qaeda....possible.......MANY more possible than Iraq. Iraq hates Al-Qeada.
The rational given for the US taking over Iraq is absurd to most of the world.....and is in reality absurd.
Not to even mention the logistical problems with trying to get bio chem weapons from Iraq to the US. Look at Iraq on the map. It's definately not the easist route. You'd have to go through Turkey, Syria, Saudi Araba, or Kuwait. Hide it on a ship, and have that ship get to the US......and have it not detected by the newly implemented censors that are now installed in most cargo shipping docks in the US.
A much easier way for a terroist group to get a bio or chemical weapon would be to get it, the exact same way Iraq did. They'd just have to pretend to hate a country with a lot of oil under it.....and the US military would gladly hook them up with the bio or chem weapons, and then use them on the US, instead of the oil country.
Lets say Saddam is in material breach of 17 UN resolutions or whatever. Does that mean they get invaded, taken over, and have thousands of their innocent people killed? If just being in material breach of a UN resolution is grounds for bloody takenover, I think another Middle Eastern country friedly with the US would have been taken over many times over.
Lets look at the neocon banana republican position. Because Saddam can't account for some bio / chem weapons , therefore we take the country over, killing many innocent iraqis civillians. Ah, quite simple.....this is exactly George Bush's position. This, and....basically, because he may have some of those chemicals left (that we gave him to use, BTW), he poses a direct and immediate threat to the United States.
Since it's extremly obvious that he has no delivery system to hit anything in the US, they mention 9-11 in the same thought as Iraq over and over again, to try to backdoor responsibility to Saddam, even though that's extremly dishonest. It's possible, Saddam might give WMD to a terrorist group such as al-qaeda (it's staunch enemy). Extremly unlikely, but....thredically possible, which is what the administration grips onto like a man does dangling off a cliff. If the pretext to taking over a country, killing thousands of it's innocent civilizans (forcing a level of deaths of many 9-11s on them) is an extremly unlikely possability......it's the pretext to......take over ANY country in the world.
Which is more likely? Al-Qaeda gets WMDs from sympatheizers in the Pakistanian intelligence service, or they get them from their grave enemy Iraq? So lets take over Pakistan!
Which is more likely....Al-Qaeda buys WMDs from some old russian scientist, who since the fall of the USSR, has been very poor, or Iraq? Lets take over Russia then!
It's POSSIBLE almost any country in the world could hook up al-qaeda....possible.......MANY more possible than Iraq. Iraq hates Al-Qeada.
The rational given for the US taking over Iraq is absurd to most of the world.....and is in reality absurd.
Not to even mention the logistical problems with trying to get bio chem weapons from Iraq to the US. Look at Iraq on the map. It's definately not the easist route. You'd have to go through Turkey, Syria, Saudi Araba, or Kuwait. Hide it on a ship, and have that ship get to the US......and have it not detected by the newly implemented censors that are now installed in most cargo shipping docks in the US.
A much easier way for a terroist group to get a bio or chemical weapon would be to get it, the exact same way Iraq did. They'd just have to pretend to hate a country with a lot of oil under it.....and the US military would gladly hook them up with the bio or chem weapons, and then use them on the US, instead of the oil country.
- Status
