TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- A new target for Weapons Inspections
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

A new target for Weapons Inspections

In the new year, Rooting Out Evil will be sending a team of volunteer weapons inspectors into that greatest of rogue nations, the United States of America.

We have selected the US as our first priority based on criteria provided by the Bush administration. According to those criteria, the most dangerous states are those run by leaders who:

1) have massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons;
2) ignore due process at the United Nations;
3) refuse to sign and honour international treaties; and
4) have come to power through illegitimate means.

The current US administration fulfills all these criteria. And so, again following Bush�s guidelines, Rooting Out Evil is demanding that his administration allow immediate and unfettered access to international weapons inspectors to search out their caches of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

If they refuse to comply, we will assemble as many volunteer weapons inspectors as possible at a major border crossing between the US and Canada and attempt to cross into the US on a mission of peace. We will be greeted on the US side by Americans who favour true global cooperation, an end to weapons of mass destruction, and a regime change in the US at the next election.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-01.htm
http://www.rootingoutevil.org/

quote:

4) have come to power through illegitimate means.

Stop Blabbering BS.
BUSH IS THE LEGITAMATE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!

There are a set of laws that must be followed. The SUPREME COURT of the USA sided in GWB favor. If the highest court of the land can't interpert the laws of the constitution and laws the congressmen of the United States of America made, then you are right, Bush is illegitimate. Just like every other single law, constitutional or regardless ever made invented or what not in the USA. Just like the speeding limit, taxes... they're all illegal usuing your logic!

Come on John, I expected more from you then this.

That's just one point that therefore leads your assumptions incorrectly.

The second to 2 and 3. The USA honors the NON-PROLIFERATION PACT which it signed, and has let external monitors witness its compliance with it. Futher it has honoured hundreds of other international and multi-national treaties, which I am sure I can list a bunch of them for you if you really really like.

Why, what international treaties did it violate exactly that you or they were reffering to?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus The second to 2 and 3. The USA honors the NON-PROLIFERATION PACT which it signed, and has let external monitors witness its compliance with it. Futher it has honoured hundreds of other international and multi-national treaties, which I am sure I can list a bunch of them for you if you really really like.

yup, and for that reason the US does not have to let in some mickey mouse orgnization with no offical standing in world politics, such as the UN for example, have free regine in some of americas most sensitive areas.

and iraq does have to let people into it's most sensitive areas because?? oh that's right, he's in the axis of evil.

as for bush and illegitmate means, i will concede, he did win the election, if you are willing to concede it was at best cloudy and unclear as to the process. he did not even win the popular vote. however it was very very close, and i'm not convinced gore would have been any better.

the US honors treaties? when it feels like it, but when it does not serve it's economical or empirical needs, it simply ignores them, for example the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty, or the Kyoto Protocol, both recently withdrawn from by Bush.

I posted this mostly as just a joke, but it does make it quite obvious that there is a huge double standard here.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith and iraq does have to let people into it's most sensitive areas because?? oh that's right, he's in the axis of evil.

No, Iraq has to let people into it's most sensitive areas because it invaded Kuwait and lost a war. Not because he's in the axis of evil buddy.

quote:

means, i will concede, he did win the election, if you are willing to concede it was at best cloudy and unclear as to the process.

True. But when it comes down to it, it it the state that votes for president not the people. In fact as the government was orginally envisioned it was never understood that the citizens would vote 'directly' for the president. But that their repersentatives would. All states have however eventually delegated this privilage to their citizens to vote 'directly' towards the president.

Florida being a republican state, it is doubtful Gore could have won it.. even fairly.

So the process is clear, although they did try and make an issue out of some elderly voters. There are always in any election obviously going to be some problems. But the factor of error is typically equal on both sides here.

quote:

the US honors treaties? when it feels like it, but when it does not serve it's economical or empirical needs, it simply ignores them, for example the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty, or the Kyoto Protocol, both recently withdrawn from by Bush.

Look I'll give you the ABM treaty, even though this is not an INTERNATIONAL treaty but simply a BI-LATERAL treaty between the USA and Russia.

But 'ignoring' from Kyoto is not correct. Kyoto let countries withdraw from it legally by a certain date (I think it was Jan 1, 2002). It would only be binding if so an so many countries would agree to it. And so forth it is non-binding since not so many countries have agreed to it. Therefore the US is in no violation of this treaty.

quote:

I posted this mostly as just a joke, but it does make it quite obvious that there is a huge double standard here.

Ok, but it was a bad joke. a bad hippy lefty joke.

but those are the best kind of jokes!

anyway.. legality is now what i'm arguing here, but rather morality.

iraq needs to be inspected because it invaded kuwait, and lost a war?

i'll just let that one go.

Okay let me ask you something: If the US decided to withdraw completely form the mid-east region and to end all threats to topple the iraqui regime , and suddenly some other country, say, China or India started to point out that Saddam was dangerous and evil and prepare a war against him...Would u support it?

I ask you that because I seriously think that most of the opponents of the iraq-war are not really interested in the iraqi question (what indeed SHOULD happen with this, and we all agree, at least potentially extremely dangerous regime) but rather more use the situation to attack american foreign policy. Its not like u defend one side, because you think they are right its just a siding with the enemy's enemy (if u forgive me my exaggeration).

So lets all forget for a moment that BUSH, Rumsfeld and the US as a country send out threats on a daily basis but think about how to solve the Iraqui problem. 'Cause it is one!

A good and well placed question TranceGiant.

True, the US are receiving a lot of attention. This is because, they are the leaders. britain follows their lead, and canada and australia largely do nothing.unfortunately, i only speak english, so i can only criticize and learn about these countries, of which the US is the clear instigator.

please note, these are only generalizations, i know this is not the whole truth.

there are others, such as russia and the situation in chechnya, or the extermination of the east timorese, but for one, i do not completely understand these situations, and for two, i do not feel threatened by the outcomes.

i do feel threatned by americas action in the middle east though.

i feel the best way i can effect peace is to verbally speak out against the source of war, and right now, i deem that to be the good ol US of A.

quote:

BUSH IS THE LEGITAMATE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!

That's because the voting system is not good, and Bush won the elections although he had less votes than Gore. It was legal, but it was also unfair.

quote:

If the US decided to withdraw completely form the mid-east region and to end all threats to topple the iraqui regime , and suddenly some other country, say, China or India started to point out that Saddam was dangerous and evil and prepare a war against him...Would u support it?

If they had a good reason (like being attacked), yes. Otherwise no. To attack a country because it might attack you is not a valid reason.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 That's because the voting system is not good, and Bush won the elections although he had less votes than Gore. It was legal, but it was also unfair.

Look this is how the USA government is setup. This is how it was written in the constitution of this government back in 1798. If you think it is unfair, that is your opinion. And were you a United States citizen, you would have the right to forfiet that privilege and try and seek citizenship in a country which you think has a 'good' voting system.

I don't understand why it is not good, or fair. It is the republic model of government, which many countries use.

quote:

If they had a good reason (like being attacked), yes. Otherwise no. To attack a country because it might attack you is not a valid reason.

Well they do have a good reason. And they were attacked. Remember the 1990-1 gulf war? Well their ally, Kuwait was attacked. Then they came in with forces to protect this nation. They defeated Iraq and made them sign treaties to ensure it would not attack them, or their allies ever again. Iraq signed and agreed to these treaties, and then latter went to violate them engadering and possing a threat to future attacks on Kuwait or its protectorate, the USA.

Therefore the USA has a legal, and valid reason why it can attack Iraq if it so choses.

Further though, I believe a country should hold a pre-emptive option. If it knows with vitality that it is udner imminent threat, it is ok in my opinion for that nation to take the initiative. For example, why if your government knows a nuclear missile will launch in T-10min, should it wait, for that nuclear to land in one of its most populated city, kill millions, and then attack in retaliation the nation that launched it. According to your logic, the nation which the nuclear missile was pointed to, can never have the initative to destory it, until it lands in one of its city, as the other nation offically 'attacked' you then.

quote:

Look this is how the USA government is setup. This is how it was written in the constitution of this government back in 1798. If you think it is unfair, that is your opinion. And were you a United States citizen, you would have the right to forfiet that privilege and try and seek citizenship in a country which you think has a 'good' voting system.

Constitution can always be changed. France had its revolution few years later and it doesn't have a voting system like that one.

quote:

I don't understand why it is not good, or fair. It is the republic model of government, which many countries use.

The fact that many countries use it doesn't mean it's fair.
I think it is unfair because it allows a candidate with minority of votes to win elections. That is in opposition with democracy which is basically the ruling of the majority.

quote:

Well they do have a good reason. And they were attacked. Remember the 1990-1 gulf war? Well their ally, Kuwait was attacked. Then they came in with forces to protect this nation. They defeated Iraq and made them sign treaties to ensure it would not attack them, or their allies ever again. Iraq signed and agreed to these treaties, and then latter went to violate them engadering and possing a threat to future attacks on Kuwait or its protectorate, the USA.

That war is over now. Using that logic, Russia also has a right to invade Germany because Germany attacked them in WW2.
Besides, I truly didn't see that Iraq has threatened US recently, or Kuwait for that matter. It was never on any news I've seen, I've only seen George Bush threatening to attack Iraq. That means then that Iraq has the right to attack the US, since they are a serious threat to Iraq. Besides, US and British airplanes are bombing Iraqi positions all the time for the last 10 years which also gives them a good reason.

quote:

Further though, I believe a country should hold a pre-emptive option. If it knows with vitality that it is udner imminent threat, it is ok in my opinion for that nation to take the initiative. For example, why if your government knows a nuclear missile will launch in T-10min, should it wait, for that nuclear to land in one of its most populated city, kill millions, and then attack in retaliation the nation that launched it. According to your logic, the nation which the nuclear missile was pointed to, can never have the initative to destory it, until it lands in one of its city, as the other nation offically 'attacked' you then.

If a nuclear missle is going to be launched in 10 minutes, a military intervention will hardly have enough time to disable it, so the missle is going to be launched anyway. Besides, you are not 100% sure that it will be launched, so it's better to wait those 10 minutes, because otherwise the nation with the missle can say it fired it in self defense and you can't prove them wrong, since you attacked. Only thing you can do in that situation is to evacuate people. And attacking a country because it might have missles which it might fire on another country is a pretty long shot. And again, your attack may only provoke usage of those missiles, which might not be used if you hadn't attacked.
Besides, I think situation in Iraq is not nearly similar to the thing you described above. Saddam is not crazy, if he gets nuclear missiles, he'll only use them for threats and to improve his status in the world, and maybe to get sanctions lifted. He knows that if he attacks anyone with it, it will be most definitely the end of him.
And I still haven't seen any proof of those weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The fact that many countries use it doesn't mean it's fair. I think it is unfair because it allows a candidate with minority of votes to win elections. That is in opposition with democracy which is basically the ruling of the majority.

You're missing the point of the electoral college. It's meant to provide the fairest means of representing the ENTIRETY of the country despite population density. Think of it this way. If you and 20 million people lived in a city and didnt give two shits about pollution because it doesn't affect you but it affects the 10 million farmers that live outside the city how is that fair? Eventually it does affect you because then the farmer will stop producing the food that feeds you. But more often than not people are too stupid to realize what the consequences of their actions are. The electoral college is designed to balance population density with general equality throughout the nation. So yes Gore did win the popular vote but Bush had enough popularity in the majority of states to carry him through to victory. Yes democracy is the ruling of the majority but oftentimes that in itself isnt fair. There needs to be in place a system to protect the rights of the minority as well. I like how everybody complains how the whole electoral college system is "undemocratic" when they have said jack shit about it during it's 200+ years of existence.

quote:

If you and 20 million people lived in a city and didnt give two shits about pollution because it doesn't affect you but it affects the 10 million farmers that live outside the city how is that fair?

And with US electorial system, those from the city would get 40 electorial votes, and those farmers would get 20. So it's still the same thing.

But look at this example now:
One state has 20 million people in towns and 15 million farmers.
Another one has 1 million people in towns, and 10 million farmers.
There are total of 25Mfarmers, and 21Mcitizens.
Without the electorial systems, farmers would win over the citizens 25:21.
But now, with the electorial system, first state would get 70 electorial votes, all for citizens. The second one would get 22 votes, all for farmers. The citizens win with 70 electors, compared to 22 farming electors, or 35:11, although in reality farmers would win 25:21.

Saddam and all his supporters should be killed! It's as simple as that. Everybody is trying to be so politically correct on these forums.. Damn it! When Saddam builds an nuke, it's gonna be the end of the world. And unless Saddam is stopped now, he will build it.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 And with US electorial system, those from the city would get 40 electorial votes, and those farmers would get 20. So it's still the same thing. But look at this example now: One state has 20 million people in towns and 15 million farmers. Another one has 1 million people in towns, and 10 million farmers. There are total of 25Mfarmers, and 21Mcitizens. Without the electorial systems, farmers would win over the citizens 25:21. But now, with the electorial system, first state would get 70 electorial votes, all for citizens. The second one would get 22 votes, all for farmers. The citizens win with 70 electors, compared to 22 farming electors, or 35:11, although in reality farmers would win 25:21.

Gosh you don't seem to get it huh?
Ok this is how the US system is build: It has two houses, one where repersentation if based on POPULATION (the house of repersentatives), the other called the Sentate, based on Statehood to the UNION (two senators per each state, regardless of quantity). Now the electorial college (the votes for president) are give to each state on a number equal to their repersentatives in congress (house and senate, or 2+ however much they get to repersant their population). Now the STATES chose how they want these electorial collegates to vote. Winning a state like Texas, New York, Florida, or California is very important as these states carry a lof of weight with them.

In all, if it is a very ingenious system designed to overlook the phenomena of the 'dumb mob'. And yes, the USA is not a democracy, even though it does champion many democratic notions, but is as I mentioned before a Republic - a Union made of many states.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 That war is over now. Using that logic, Russia also has a right to invade Germany because Germany attacked them in WW2. Besides, ... Besides, US and British airplanes are bombing Iraqi positions all the time for the last 10 years which also gives them a good reason.

NO! You don't get it, this is not the same. Using your example above, Russia, would have the right to attack Germany, say if they were to build aircraft carriers today. Why? Under the treaty of their surrender, Germany forfieted its right to an army, and severe restrictions have beeen placed on its 'national defense' forces by the victors of WWII. One of these claues, mentions that Germany (nor Japan) can builld or own aircraft carriers. Building such things would be a violation of the treaty, and would give either the US, UK, or Russia a just cause of war against the German nation.

quote:

If a nuclear missle is going to be launched in 10 minutes, a military intervention will hardly have enough time to disable it,

I didn't say where the missle is, I can say for instance it is in North Korea, or Iraq. Response times are about 8 mins there, and could disable it in time.

quote:

100% sure that it will be launched, so it's better to wait those 10 minutes, because otherwise the nation with the missle can say it fired it in self defense and you can't prove them wrong, since you attacked. Only thing you can do in that situation is to evacuate people. And attacking a country because it might have missles which it might fire on another country is a pretty long shot. And again, your attack may only provoke usage of those missiles, which might not be used if you hadn't attacked.

Man, no wonder, with a pacifist hippie view point like this no wonder you misconcieve how the world really works. By the time you contemplate what to do the missle is on its way, and by the time you decide not to do anything, boom your dead. Not much you can do now huh?

Grow up in your thinking man.

quote:

You don't get it, this is not the same. Using your example above, Russia, would have the right to attack Germany, say if they were to build aircraft carriers today. Why? Under the treaty of their surrender, Germany forfieted its right to an army, and severe restrictions have beeen placed on its 'national defense' forces by the victors of WWII. One of these claues, mentions that Germany (nor Japan) can builld or own aircraft carriers. Building such things would be a violation of the treaty, and would give either the US, UK, or Russia a just cause of war against the German nation.

Ok, that's true, but still, I don't see evidence that Iraq is violating its treaty.

quote:

Man, no wonder, with a pacifist hippie view point like this no wonder you misconcieve how the world really works. By the time you contemplate what to do the missle is on its way, and by the time you decide not to do anything, boom your dead. Not much you can do now huh?

I had a feeling you hate hippies.
Anyway, I said it like that mostly because I thought you don't have enough time to intercept the missile.
But aside from that, the situation with Iraq is not nearly similar to the missile situation you described. It's not like saddam is just about to unleash womd on Israel, afaik.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ok, that's true, but still, I don't see evidence that Iraq is violating its treaty. I had a feeling you hate hippies.

Ya, the funny part is they hate me too.... and they're hippies!

quote:

But aside from that, the situation with Iraq is not nearly similar to the missile situation you described. It's not like saddam is just about to unleash womd on Israel, afaik.

Well, Iraq expelled UN inspectors. This is the just cause for war. This would be the equivolant of germany building an aircraft carrier.

But right, instead of 10min, its more like a year or a year and a half. And he might not unleash it, he just might threaten too. But that is extremly powerful in itself as well.

Imagine, it were to ask the USA 10 billion dollars a year, or it would nuke say Riyhad and Tel Aviv. Not a good situation, so now armed with a just cause for war, the USA hopes to prevent such a scenario from ever taking place.

I clearly do not agree to war with Iraq at all...this is the thrid time the US will invade this nation... crippling its economy and sending millions into poverty becuase of this...THE THIRD time!!!! If your nation was so powerful.. and was doing it for the good of the people of the future... why are they persistently attacking this nation...couldnt they finish off "task" the first time? And dont give me that bullshit "more lives will be saved in the future" becuase the future always holds death for the Iraqi people by your genocidal government.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King I clearly do not agree to war with Iraq at all...this is the thrid time the US will invade this nation... crippling its economy and sending millions into poverty becuase of this...THE THIRD time!!!!

ok, ill be the idiot that asks.. The third time?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus ok, ill be the idiot that asks.. The third time?

1991, 1998, and unfortunately 2003

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King 1991, 1998, and unfortunately 2003

Good, for a second I thought I was the idiot.

The USA did not invade Iraq as you claim in 1998, it was simply a loosey ariel attack.

One might even claim, that the USA did not invade Iraq in 1991. As they occupied no cities, and withdrew any troops in Iraqi territory after the war. All troops that entered Iraqi territory did so to destroy Iraqi troops who possed involvement or risk to Kuwait. They did not go into Iraq in an attempt to conquer. But regardless, of this argument its not THREE.

I don't understand ... Sadam invaded Kuwait for the sole purpose of economic gain and people are praising him. He threatened Saudi Arabia such that they requested US intervention and people are DEFENDING him. Now people are saying so what if he develops nukes ... IF HE DOES what if he invades kuwait and threatens any country that interferes with nuclear weapons???? There's a clear history of people sitting on their panties until it's too late as demonstrated by 1939. Say what you will but a policy of nuclear non plofiration is not exactly an evil agenda.

quote:

Sadam invaded Kuwait for the sole purpose of economic gain and people are praising him. He threatened Saudi Arabia such that they requested US intervention and people are DEFENDING him.

But economic gain was such that without the assault Iraq would go bankrupt. And Kuwait didn't want a peaceful solution there. If they'd raised the oil prices, Saddam wouldn't invade.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Good, for a second I thought I was the idiot. The USA did not invade Iraq as you claim in 1998, it was simply a loosey ariel attack. One might even claim, that the USA did not invade Iraq in 1991. As they occupied no cities, and withdrew any troops in Iraqi territory after the war. All troops that entered Iraqi territory did so to destroy Iraqi troops who possed involvement or risk to Kuwait. They did not go into Iraq in an attempt to conquer. But regardless, of this argument its not THREE.

Oh yes.. its JUST an ariel attack...

Dont you understand....the governement of the US went to war with Iraq all three times....whether it is ariel, by sea or ground....they still invaded those areas and attacked the nation. In any case... even if they didnt conquer that land...they nevertheless invaded...killed many.. and left for their own reasons.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.