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.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

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needs, it simply ignores them, for example the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty, or the Kyoto Protocol, both recently withdrawn from by Bush.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.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

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.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

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!

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

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.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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.