Originally posted by Falcon X
I guess you like stupid people that are eloquent in office better? I see it far more dangerous to have an eloquent politician in office (Clinton). He can lie easier. And in comparison he ain't that dumb chief.
I find it humorous that you should seek to justify this man's incompetence by claiming it harder for him to lie. In a position as head of state stupidity constitutes incompetence, the same can be said for dishonesty (baring in mind it makes no difference to the fate of the country if a politician attempts to cover up an extra marital affair). Your point still stands that stupidity makes dishonesty, what's more successful dishonesty a more difficult option, but a dullard in power (especially one born to a life of luxury) is almost certainly not the best candidate for the job, thus just as harmful as someone dishonest of which someone articulate only stands a chance of being.
I know everyone always says it's about oil, and you know what ? You're right! It's about oil for "old Europe", Germany and France. They are the ones with big oil treaties with Saddam, and if these embargo's are lifted they profit. I mean do they really care what happens to US citizens? Nope.
Please back that statement up with facts and figures.
And for all of you people still not understanding common international law understand this: The U.S is not initiating the war. Iraq is and has.
If you could explain how you arrived at that conclusion, then that too will be appreciated or did you just hear it on the TV and thought it sounded good?. The refusal to allow what are essentially spies unfettered access and provide them with information on every aspect of the military certainly does not amount to an act of aggression by anyone's terms but the US Government's.
You know that little piece of paper he signed saying he will disarm and have the UN CONFIRM that? Well he violated that in '98 when all Clinton did was wag the dog. With that violation a state of war is already here. Not to mention that little unanimous resolution that told Iraq to cooperate totally or else.... well he still isn't.
Indeed that is so, and I'm sure the Palestinians will be pleased to be informed that America will act with the same hostility towards Israel and its occupation of Palestine, and North Korea will be as savagely attacked as Iraq is about to be, as the US Government is in no way capable of ambiguous standards where there is considerable money to be made.
Then why aren't you for Iraq? I mean Bosnia was not even a blip on the US's threat radar....
You make the assumption that everyone was. The main Reason for public support for Bosnia was because the Serbs were actively persuing a military campaign at that time. Iraq is currently militarily dormant and of no conceivable threat to anybody but dissidents of its own regime, within its borders, as are Saudi Arabia (from which the US has bases), Iran, Afghanistan still, Turkmenistan, China, North Korea, Ukraine, Pakistan, Angola, Somalia, Turkey, Tunisia, Lybia, Burma, Zimbabwe (in the form of mob violence), The Former USSR (in the form of heavy police corruption and mafia).
I just find it laughable that the US had to bail the Europeans out of that one too. Look what happens when you scrape your army. Face it you guys are becoming insignificant militarily.
The US didn't
have to do anything. It was a choice made entirely of its own free will.
Insufficient Militarily to persue what? Fight a war of plunder, station troops throughout the world where they do not belong. It's fairly safe to assume that most Europeans have realized that free healthcare and ensuring a significant proportion of the population aren't living in poverty is of greater importance than that warm fuzzy feeling one obtains by proving everyone who happens to live in one geographical location is much better than everyone else by dropping bombs on them.
Kinda sucks when you guys controlled the world and now control nothing. All you have is the Security council... I wonder why Germany wants on it? Face it, the "old Europe" line is too true. The world is changing and you guys hate it.
You are displaying excessive hostility for your argument to even look credible. It is common knowledge that resorting to insults makes your seem seem weak in order for you to need to use them.
It is clear from your post that you are very Nationalistic, not just in your references to the US but to Europe. First of all it needs to be established who you were referring to by 'you guys'. There is almost no doubt that those functioning Nations in What you called old Europe did indeed 'own half the world' but who did it benefit? The peers of the Realm, the Monarchs, the industrialists and members of Parliament or the workers and farm Tennant's who continued to stare despite this influx of wealth, or are we to assume that what benefits a nation mutually benefits its entire population. It is interesting because the very same logic is used to justify the sanctions on Iraq and the Blockade of Cuba (or is this just another case of selective logical ambiguity on your part). No attention at all is payed to the huge and in some cases violent internal antagonisms within those countries much more important than the fate of their nation, within 'Old Europe'. and the number of people did not appreciate their fellow countrymen (who they supposedly have more in common with than those in the same status somewhere else) taking over 'half the world'.
You put tremendous faith in laws and treaties most of which were forced, viewing them infallible and the basis for all your judgments, clinging onto an oversimplified account which is little more than a regurgitation of the right wing rhetoric which is being broadcast by the majority of newspapers and television networks, yet you remain impervious to the HisHistory the country or the context surrounding Saddam Hussain's rise to power and reign. Loudly proclaiming America righteous and Good verses Iraq, contradictory, in the wrong and Evil. Showing no suspicion as to the ulterior motives of the politicians that were prepared to deal with this government no more than fifteen years ago, yet today are at the forefront of the campaign to launch an invasion there.
