OT: Dutch democracy compromised... Options

[Bleyseng]

I will be nice too as this is supposed to be like a garage where we are all talking to each other.

One point- Lay off the French bashing. I have spoken at length with my French friends about WW2 and why they gave up. The explanation is that their fathers whose fathers fought in WW1 never wanted to go thru that type of carnage again. Better to surrender and live then die by the MILLIONS like in WW1. They saw what happened to the Polish army which was wiped off the face of the earth.

The French have been fighting long drawn out wars for 2 centurys and have figured out it sucks. Remember the 100 years war (Louis XVI demise), Napoleanic Wars, the Franco/Prussian Wars.
I recall history as MikeZ says in regards to why the Germans liked Hitler.

I never likes Saddam nor do I like the guy in charge of N Korea, or the idiots in Sudan but damn do you really think the US can go around and take out these guys?

I have never seen this evidence that Iraq was near a atomic bomb. I have heard it was a total pipe dream and they had started to make a plan on a laptop. No resources to build such a thing and thing were going to use it to balance theirs with guess who-Iran.

I don't believe anything this Bush/Cheney says. This whole terrorist problem is something else and I don't have an answer. I do think its a small group now but if we don't get our shit together it will become even more of a problem there.

Geoff

[SirAndy]

Are you so pacifist that you will not stand up to evil, or if you do not believe in evil, do you not stand up up against killers, dictators that have evil (sorry no evil) Bad intent against America.

you obviously don't know me. which is OK.
i'm not a pacifist. i'm not a democrat. i'm not a republican.

you obviously believe in all the BS you're spewing out. which is OK.
i'd rather use my brain, the facts and some common sense.

to each his own,
<_< Andy

[dmenche914]

Uhm, build an allience, England, Australia, Poland, Italy, until recently Spain, Japan, and others are part of the the allies. France and Germany opted out. Let's see, france had a long history in the middle east, but so did England. Germany also had history there, we can go on how hitler had an allience with the islamic mufti of Jeruselem, something about mutual hate for the jews, so much for german mideast history.

lets see the french just wanted to wait, and wait, as saddam continued to offer and pay out rewards to suicide bomber families. Just wait, and wait, that has been the french thing to do.

Not only that, evidence has emerged that some big time french leaders, and bussiness people were on the take with saddam. We found french weapons of recent vintage in iraq.

The UN food for oil program was full of pay offs, that goes all the way up to Kofi at the head of the U.N.

So yes we could have waited for the french to join us, but how long???? Are not the other allies important?
France and the UN are nuts, hell they are even mad that the iraqi's have the death penalty over saddam, yes, they are against the death penalty even for a war criminal like saddam. Now how the hell do you think we could have them as allies.
even after we captured saddam, and told the world we would turn him over to the iraqi's for trial, france and the UN complined that he might, get the death penalty. They wanted to try him, they wanted life in prison.
How on earth can we have an ally like that, oh please oh please do not kill saddam!!!!
They got payoffs from saddam, do not want anyone to execute saddam, and had faith in the UN inspectors.

America was doing all it could to enforce the no fly zone, with englands help too. France was trying to get rid of sanctions, and resume bussiness as usual with saddam.
With that attitude, france could not be our ally against saddam ever.
say we waited a year, and convinced france we would not harm saddam and his son's, convince them that they would be tried in the hague under un control. Say we promised france reperations from the oil reserves (france likes to get reperations from the defeated, see WWI discussion, one writer nearly blames france for hitlers rise, becuase of repairations) so we make conssession to france. That would fuck up the rebuilding of iraq. Do you not think the iraqi's might rather try and execute saddam rather than the french saying they can't? That would go over real well.

remember in Baghdad the UN came in to set up shop, we (the USA0 told them their security was not good enough at their headquarters, we offered security, they refused it, said it would be too intimidating, or agianst there sacred non-violent position or some crap. So a suicide terrorist takes out their building, they bitch that we (the USA) did not supply enough security for them, they stop bitching once we point out that we did offer protectioin, that they refused. So what happens, they leave, too dangerous for the UN. Good grief!
The french would be welcome anytime to help out. When we gave rebuilding contracts out, the french were pissed off that we only offered contracts to allies, not the french. Hell they complained, they wanted US tax dollars going to french contractors. They would not put one dime of their french money in heloing the rebuild, but bitched and moned we they were cut out of making any profit. So you can only count on the french if there is money to be made by them, Hell we could not even count on half of france to fight the nazi's. Many french sided with the nazi's and formed the Vichy government, that even fought agianst us. So much for "traditional ' Ally in france.

Besides, if we waited it would give more time for saddam to hideout, develop more weapons, and maybe in a year or two of waiting khadafi would have an atom bomb, and offer to defend saddam. Maybe if we waited long enough, iran would get an a bomb, and make matters worse for us.(sure Iran/iraq have been enemies, but I but if Iran had the "bomb" they would have offered it to defend iraq, after all in Gulf War One, where did saddam send his airforce for hidding?, he sent them to iran!)

I think the timing was such that we could not risk either saddam, khadafi, nor Iran getting the bomb prior to invasion. Now we just need to worry about iran, not all three.

I think we should have gone sooner, It would have given saddam less time to hide/transfer his weapons program, which is something he surely did in the time before the war.
The sanctions were full of holes (thank you france/UN), and saddam was getting stronger, not weaker.

finally, we did not need france, we got thru the iraqi army pretty fast, and things are starting to look good in iraq, elections will be soon. France had nothing to offer, and was on the take with saddam.
This love of france, and wanting the USA to be in agreeement with france is wrong headed.
France is less an ally than England. France opted out of NATO during the cold war. France has not been helpful in Iraq, and one can argue that our losses would have been less if france had not played nicey nicey with saddam, taking his bribes, selling him weapons, and keeping him in power.

If france was truely interested in a free iraq, they would offer to help, and I mean true help, offer to pay for some reconstruction, put some troops on the ground, and stop all this high moral crap about no executions for saddam and his gang. Why can't france suck up and be cooperative? Hell we are not doing this just for ourselves, the entire civilized world is going to benifit from the removal of bad dictotors, becuse in todays world, it is too easy for a dab guy to get an a-bomb, and we must do everthing to prevent that from happening, with or without frances help. We cannot afford to play the french game, the world is too dangerous today for that.

one could argue that france should support it's best ally, its savior, the nation that not once, but twice had to save it from the germans, a france that sat by in gay parie eating cheese, and stinking while the nazi menace grew.
If anything france owes us big time, did we ever get payment from them for saving their whole nation twice???

We have an allience with brave freedom loving nations, and even some that may not be totally freedom loving, but at least undertstand the danger of a-bomb equiped terrorists (ie russia). lets go forth and rid the threats, and promote freedom.
This is one thing the UN was supposed to do, but with so many voting dictators in the UN, the UN fails to act. The UN has never overthrown any dictator, half the mamber nations are not free. How can that ever be an effective organization for freedom, and rights????

[dmenche914]

Sir Andy, so what is your opinion?, You have stated we did the wrong thing, what is the right thing?, you said you have some fact's yet all I here is bashing the stratagy we have, but I do not hear solutions.

What would have you done after 9-11?
How would have dealt with terror states that are working on A-Bombs?

What is your proposal?

Since you have not gone to name calling, I assume you are intellegent, but you are silient.

You can bash the stratagy on terror without any solutions, however it would be more interesting to hear what is on your mind on this. Ok, if we didn't go int here, what should have we done? Do you disagree with the premise that saddam was a danger to the USA?

I am sure others would like to here from you, and anyone else that does not like the plan we are on, what would you do???

[reverie]

It would be interesting if the UN had been formed in the way other countries wanted it formed.

Back in 1945-46, when the countries of the world were meeting in San Francisco to form the UN, the "Big Five" countries seriously discussed doing away with standing armies/ militaries in the world.. no country was to have a military, only the UN would be allowed to have a big multinational unit, capable of going in and straightening out strongmen and other bs. Four of the Big Five were ready to sign on the dotted line, and make that world a reality, but guess which country refused to sign?... the US, the big new self-important kid on the block.

If we had signed, it would be a different world today. The UN would use the economic and military weight of the world to squelch problems. Wars would be over before they had a chance to get started. Some Americans would call that a dream, but in the aftermath of WWII, most people in the world thought that dream was within our reach. That would have been a fitting end to all the bloodshed and sacrifice of the two world wars.

[SirAndy]

Not only that, evidence has emerged that some big time french leaders, and bussiness people were on the take with saddam.  We found french weapons of recent vintage in iraq.

this is EXACTLY what i'm talking about ...
you take some facts and conveniently leave others out,
does the word "Demagogue" mean anything to you?


FACT:
In the early 80s the US used Iraq as a Ally and Counterweight to
what it then perceived a thread to their middle-east oil supply.
Iran.

FACT:
The US dumped Millions of Dollars into training the Iraqi Military.
Iraq was supplied with Weapons from the US, France, Spain, Germany
and others.

FACT:
The US initiated, funded and encouraged the Iraqi Weapons program.
yes, the same program that we're now chasing after so frantically!

FACT:
When Iraq used poison gas on Iranian troops and Iraq Kurds the
US stepped up their Training and Weapons-Delivery!

FACT:
Osama-Bin-Laden and his followers were trained (and partially funded)
by the US Military.


MY BRAIN & SOME COMMON SENSE:
This war is about Resources. Oil. It's not about stealing a Tanker full
of Oil here and there. It's about securing the flow of Oil from a
region that is politically unstable. By occupying Iraq, the US has
established a foothold in the region that will allow them to ensure
a uninterrupted oil-low.

First it was WMDs, now it's "Freeing the People".
None of you hypocrites has said a word about those poor Iraqi
bastards when their killing and torture was in your interest.
Saddam was our Ally while he killed and tortured his own people.
Did you go to the streets to protest him back then? did you write
your congressman to stop the US support for his regime?
let me make a wild guess ...

if you truly believe this is all about being the "Good Samaritan"
of the world, you need to get some professional help.

the list is much longer than that, i could go on for pages,
but i'm fed up by your ignorance and stupidity ...

i am out of this "discussion" ...
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif) Andy

[mikerose]

I honestly don't understand why so many of you believe the BS propaganda.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/Yack.gif)

[dmenche914]

And give up all our rights to an UN??? The big five, I guess would have included the Soviets? We were to give up are arms and trust them???

The world would be a worse place under that world government. besides if no one had an army, who could stop a bad guy from forming an army?
Would this UN thing be able to stop terrorists?

would I have freedoms as in my Bill of Rights?

This is a pipe dream, best left in the ashtray.

Our leaders back them did not cede our power, our freedom to the UN, and good thing we were not that foolish. Very nice idea on paper, but it would not have worked with Stalin a good member in standing.

How long would this world peace UN idea have lasted?

The first time that this world army UN would try to tell Stalin to stop killing his own people, Stalin would say bug off, and then the World UN would have to bring up an army to defeat the Red Army, or would the UN decide to ignore Soviet abusses, after all the Soviets would be one of the Big Five charter members, wouldn't want to piss them off, it would ruin the whole wolrd UN idea, and thus the ideals of this World UN would be ignored, and freedom for the Soviet dissendent would be sacrificed for the greater world UN.

That how I figure this idea would have panned out.

We need to get over the idea that all nations can live in peace, and disputes worked out by UN diplomates. As long as there are bad guys, people that do not hold the ideals laid out in the American Bill of Rights, and our Consitution (some free nations have simular laws that would work) we can not expect to live in peace, and all the worlds people will not be free. You do not remove bad guys by elevating these dictators to seats on the UN.
This is the main reason that the UN has been such a failure. The UN tries to comprimise between the good, and the bad, and what you get is bad.

Sorry, but that is one reason why I think the USA would have rejected such a plan if offered.

The USA and a few other nations (very few) are the worlds hope of freedom. A handful of good intentioned free nations cannot bring freedom to the world by working thru an UN that is full if member dictators, communists, and such. We need to be on our own to do what is best for us, and frankly what is best for us is to promote freedom world wide, the UN has not been the way to do that, cause most of the member nations do NOT believe in freedom. Freedom world wide is our best security, and morally it is the thing to do, that is if you truely believe in Americas constitiution, bill of rights, and declaration.

Do you believe that ALL men are created equal and have inalienable rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happieness? If so then lest clean up the bad guys.

[dmenche914]

Sir Andy, we did supply stuff a long time ago to saddam, after all he was fighting Iran, which hated us. So now we have gotten smarter, that is for sure, We are not suppling arms to a dictator to take out another one for us. Instead we are taking on the dictator directly,

For france, the problem is they were getting around the embargo, and taking bribes from Iraq. I am not saying we never did such a thing, however if france was doing that, while we were putting together an allinece to take out saddam, and the opposition to this was saying wait for france, wait for france, we need france on board, give them more time, well you can see that would not work, france was on the take with saddam, we at this time, could not wait for france, cause france was not on our side.

Yes we have made some mistakes, but what we are doing now is right.

I see where you are coming from, no solutions, no explaination on how you would have done it different. You just give excuses and complaints, complaints about what we did years ago, but nothing on how you would solve it. I really thought you would have some ideas worth debating, guess not.

By the way even if I had protested in the streets years ago about the gassing of the iranians or kurds, it would have not stopped it, the only thing that stopped saddam was invasion. So Sir Andy are you saying we should have invaded Iraq years ago, but since we did not do it then, we should not do it now?

I am beginning to think you will not have any logical arguement to give, nor suggestion on how you would have done it better. You told us what you aren't but have not told us what you are.

How would you stop terror states that are trying to get the a-bomb???

1. Invade
2. Give them uranium, and ask them only to use it peacefully?
3. Sign a treaty with them, and trust them?
4. Give them tons of money to reduce poverty, the cause of all wars and terror (according to UN types, not me).

the way I see it we have abunch of little hitlers in the world, all trying to get an a-bomb, or even just train pilots to hit skyscrapers.

i say kill them before they get us. what is your plan?

[redshift]

If it keeps my grass green, I am willing to test every single piece of ordinance we have stockpiled for 50 years.

It's my intenet to keep Hunter safe.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


M

[Jenny]

It's my intent to keep Hunter safe.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


M

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

Jen

[Bleyseng]

The US has made it a policy to support dictators or install them.
1940's- the Saudis'
1955- What was it Guatemala and the CIA installing a dictator after ousting the elected President because of the Dole banana Co.
1955- Vietnam-Bao Dai deposed and Diem installed because he was pro US
1950's- Iran and the US backing of the Shah.
hell, the list goes on and on so for ya all to proclaim the US actions in the world to be in the support of free societies and democratic ideals, bs. The media has brainwashed the masses with government spin. If you say a lie long enough, people believe its true. We are real good at making sure others are free as long as they agree with us or supply us with oil.

France and Germany were pissed that Bush went ahead to war without going thru with the UN process. They are still pissed because of the reconstruction contracts going mostly to US corps.

Do I like Sadamm, no. Do I wish him the death penalty, not my call, I want him tried under Iraqi laws not Texas laws. Laws and customs are different worldwide so when it Rome do as the Romans do.

Where is the proof that Sadamm nearly had a Abomb? I read and heard it was so far off it was a pipe dream. Or is this back to the yellow cake material document that was proved to be false.
The US is a nice place to live but can't we make it better here first?

Geoff (IMG:style_emoticons/default/flag.gif)

[fiid]

This board is very representative of this country.

We say we have a constitution, and certain minimum rights that we uphold. But it's really just a farce.

Similarly we say we don't want political conversations. But that's just a farce too.

Way to go on the consistency people.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smilie_pokal.gif)


Shame that the dutch guy got shot.

[fiid]

Oh yeah. I lost the argument about allowing political discussion. So ... errr..... delete this thread.

[Bleyseng]

I like the political discussions....good to hear what others think even thou I might beg to differ.

Geoff (IMG:style_emoticons/default/aktion035.gif)

[redshift]

hehe I don't hate you guys, at all. Good luck everyone, in everything you do.

(except vote against my candidate)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

What if the Election had been Carter vs. Carter?

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/w00t.gif)


M

[fiid]

I personally agree with you, but I believe it was agreed accross the population of the board to curb it. If that is the case.... curb it.

[ThinAir]

I like the political discussions....good to hear what others think even thou I might beg to differ.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

[Bleyseng]

I missed that vote....but I do remember the name calling which is kinda dumb.


Geoff

[redshift]

What is that supposed to mean, dumbass?

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

M