What do you call letting inspectors do their job from 2002-2003?
If you think the links are biased, then I guess referencing to news reports means nothing?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:What do you call letting inspectors do their job from 2002-2003?
If you think the links are biased, then I guess referencing to news reports means nothing?
LOL, have you ever looked at Hans Blixs' reports from Jan.2003 saying that Iraq was still not cooperationg 100% with the UN inspectors? And the ONLY reason that Iraq even had any UN inspectors in was because the US was building forces in the Gulf on his back door.
12 years of pussyfooting around with a guy that(if you have seen any of his trial) is still a nut job who couldn't be trusted to fulfill the UN Cease Fire Agreement. Hell, Clinton should have gone in in 1998 and whiped the guy out.
It doesnt really matter we went and used force where and when we shouldnt have based on rumors.... We went agianst the UN and did it anyway. After we went in under the guise of removing WMD that didnt exisit we then decided that we needed to overthrow the goverment in that country and try and spread our way of life throughout that part of the world.
The apropriate thing would have been to use our forces to escort the investigators wherever it was they wanted to go not run in there guns blazing and destroy a country and its way of life. Yes the Saddam was a horrible ruler and did horrible things to his people. However there are people out there that thing the same thing about us and our country. They feel we are nothing but a country full of fat greedy gluttons. That however doesnt give them anymore of a right to come into our country and uproot our way of life. Clinton Clinton Clinton....who cares Bush has done more damage to our country already than Clinton did in his entire 8 years in office. I cant wait to see what happens when the history books are written about the Bush adminstration.
dude, 34 countries is 34 countries. you can say what you want, try to make 34 countries seem like nothing if you want. But there was more support for this war than you think. Bush must have used mind control to confuse the leaders of these countries right? or maybe he drugged them into thinking that this war was the right thing to do. You are just looking for any reason to discredit this war because it is being led by a Republican. We ARE making progress in Iraq. you people are sitting back there stuck on the whole WMD issue, while in the present, we are hoping for this newly ELECTED government to take hold. I think you guys just WANT the US to lose, you WANT the US to lose as many troops as possible, you DONT want Iraq to become a stable,safe, democratic state. This is just the impression that I get. You say Saddam was better than no Saddam. You say corrupt UN oil-for-fraud programs, and limp-legged security council meetings are better than liberating these 70 million people from an oppressive dictator. I will never understand your point of view. IT simply makes no sense.
have a nice day, prick
Steve
My other car is an interceptor.
Steve, no need for name calling. That's childish, and it doesn't make any more right, or anyone else anymore wrong. We're discussing here.
Instead of looking at Blix's reports, why not look at the reports of the people on the ground... they got their answers, and evidently, there was nothing there that hadn't been found in 1992 during the UN's WMD abatement programs.
You're talking about making a fractious government work, when there are Shi'ites in the east &south, Kurds in the north, Sunni's in the middle and south and other minor factions that want to carve Iraq up into their own little fiefdoms. This and the fact that violence has been escalating?
Top that off with the fact that the oil fields have not been nearly as productive as previously estimated they would be at this point, and, the fact that there is a porous border on no less than 3 major state-sponsors of terrorism? I'm sorry, there's no good in that situation, especially if you're footing the bill, and the main reason for invasion has evanesced into nothing.
Either way, you make your bed, you lie in it. Iraq isn't going to be autonomous for years... Most optimistic estimates peg US/UK involvement at 5-7 years, with most expecting 10+. This was the same kind of pattern that the Soviet Union got in Afghanistan... a fast invasion and installation of a sympathetic government, and a protracted and costly war of occupation. Worked out well for GHW Bush.. Might just do Dubya in though.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
mrgto wrote:12 years of pussyfooting around with a guy that(if you have seen any of his trial) is still a nut job who couldn't be trusted to fulfill the UN Cease Fire Agreement. Hell, Clinton should have gone in in 1998 and whiped the guy out.
Wait, wait wait wait.... Saddam looks like a nut job at his trial? What about that farce trial that Clinton had, where he
actually debated what the meaing of "is" is. It's just legal maneuvering to avoid discussing the real issues.
And since that's been brought up, what exactly is Saddam on trial for?
He was dictator of his country, so he didn't break any Iraq laws, because he made them up as he went along. It's good to be dictator in that regard.
He did commit unspeakable actions against his own people, but so do other dictators that aren't at risk of having their country taken over by the USA.
It couldn't be that Kuwait thing, he retreated and agreed to UN weapons inspections.
Oh, wait, he wasn't eager to show the UN what exactly he had for weapons.
That's reason enough to overthrow his country and put him on trial?
Saddam has to be laughing his a$$ off about this.. Either he a) never had any WMD's, so he fooled everyone, or b) he's still got them hidden and is laughing because we can't find them.
Either way, the USA was wrong for their actions in Iraq. Canada should take over Washington DC. Bush has WMD's and is way too eager to go to war. And the US has oil, so according to some of us here, that's all the reason Bush needed. And different from Iraq, the Canadian military will actually find WMD's here.
*footnote* this is my last post for this month, I'm out. I think I may need to upgrade my status from "visiting opinionated jerk" to "official member opinionated jerk". Happy New Year, and I'll be back in 2006.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
HAH!!!!
Wow.. Have you got an asbestos suit kicking around? You're gonna need it, John!
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
So we had 34 out of the (best estimate I can come up with from the UN) 191 countries in the world. So thats ummmm lets see rough estimate is ummm about 20%.... of the countries of the in the UN.... ummmm what happened to the 99% I keep hearing you guys talk about? Seems as though your a few % points short of your claims. We did it, We were wrong, We screwed up, We are using it as an opportunity to overthrow an independant country based on the fact that we disagree with there political views, We now have to pay the price to fix our fu[k up. Sorry I for one am a little upset about the cost of this sham of a war that we are fighting. I dont make a lot of money but I pay a lot of taxes out of the little that I make going to a war effort that is being fought on false premis.
The UN is useless, outdated, corrupt, worthless and we should pull out. Please stop bringing up what they say is the end all be all of rules. Got news it all comes down in the end to who has the bigger guns. Fortunately thats us.
As for Canada taking over the US, LOL !! thats the funniest thing I've heard in a long long time. History lesson for you.......Do you know WHY the Canadian National Railway was built where it is ? There are easier passes thru the Canadian Rockies. It wasn't for the scenery thats for sure.
Give up ?
The route was chosen and the original track laid to prevent the US from invading their
territory and claiming it for our own. Canada thought the railroad would make a nice line that could be measured from to PROVE where Canada started. Now if the Canadians were so worried about us invading them for expansion way back when then HOW would they be able to invade us now ?
Oh that was a good one !!!
besides why would Canada WANT to ? You guys watch the news, You see how fu-ked
up things can be down here. Why on EARTH would you want to take this over ?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Jackalope wrote:The UN is useless, outdated, corrupt, worthless and we should pull out. Please stop bringing up what they say is the end all be all of rules. Got news it all comes down in the end to who has the bigger guns. Fortunately thats us.
Every arguement you've pointed out about the UN applies to the US.
The difference: The UN has to deal with 191 other countries and cultures.
Quote:
As for Canada taking over the US, LOL !! thats the funniest thing I've heard in a long long time. History lesson for you.......Do you know WHY the Canadian National Railway was built where it is ? There are easier passes thru the Canadian Rockies. It wasn't for the scenery thats for sure.
Give up ?
The route was chosen and the original track laid to prevent the US from invading their
territory and claiming it for our own. Canada thought the railroad would make a nice line that could be measured from to PROVE where Canada started. Now if the Canadians were so worried about us invading them for expansion way back when then HOW would they be able to invade us now ?
Wrong. Where the hell did you dream that one up from, Jack?
The CN rail way passed through the rockies where it does because of the rock. Try blasting through upheaved igneous granite, and see how long it takes you.
Also, the original line was owned by a bankrupt private company... it didn't have anything to do with national lines.
Finally, do you not realise that Canada became a country in 1867? Did you not know that US aggressions were met and repelled EVERYTIME there was a push onto loyalist soil?
Here's a bit of history, do you know why the Whitehouse is actually White? It was Whitewashed after Loyalists beat back an invasion and torched it in the war of 1812 (the war you don't read about because the US lost to a rag-tag bunch of colonials and indians).
Quote:
Oh that was a good one !!!
besides why would Canada WANT to ? You guys watch the news, You see how fu-ked
up things can be down here. Why on EARTH would you want to take this over ?
Why do you think we haven't set you all straight?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
HA ! GAM, Don't think so. You may know politics my friend but the railroad is MY hobby. I got that directly from a Canadian Pacific documentary filmed by the Canadian govt. !! Thats where I got that from. When the original routes were being explored it was decided by YOUR govt to take the southerly most route not for snow or bad weather but so that it would hopefully discourage any further expansion by the US so
When I get home if I remember I'll post the name of the film so you may watch it and enjoy learning about your countries history.
I know why the white house is white and why some spots aren't ever painted or maintained but thanks just the same.
So the US is useless, outdated, corrupt and worthless ? Uh huh. Unfortunately because we have the big guns and are the worlds superpower that really doesn't seem possible Gam. But thanks for making such a silly statement.
The rest of the world may need the UN but we don't.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Okay... getting off topic... (duck and cover... nice)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Pacific_Railway
The Western invasion route idea is wrong as hell, I'd like to know the documentary, because it needs some fact checking. Look at the routing. When did a train track ever serve as a national border anyhow?
Back on topic: self-aggrandisement and the inability to work with other countries is the hall mark of the current administration. No one is questioning that the UN needs work. The only other solution is empire, and frankly, that's not a possibility in the post nuclear age.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
As for the train thing like I said when I get home I'll give you its name. I can't remember it off the top of my head, sorry.
Anyway whats wrong with an empire ?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
No problem about the Video... The CP railway (and a bunch of others) was founded long after the end of hostilities, and it was part of a renewed interest in opening up the west, and thereby, making a united Canada (keep in mind, the greater part of the west was still owned by the Hudson's Bay Company). The promise of a sea to sea rail line was part of the political push behind the British North America act.
Fun stuff
Anyhow, Empire isn't so bad... for films about Britain, France and Spain... in reality, when you have a few dozen countries that have Nukes, and long range vehicles to carry them... Empire isn't such a great idea... you'll find it makes capital cities, and large populated areas really unfriendly places for about 15,000 years at a stretch
Nukes really diminish land values... almost as bad as crack houses.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Naaaa ! Nukes ain't so bad. So it glows when you pee and you can see in the dark from your new third eye whats wrong with that ?
And I'll get you that video info tonight.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
If you could, check the credits at the end... If it's an Nat'l Film Board production, I'm going to make a few calls...
Nukes are only bad until they're detonated.. then.. you really don't need to worry.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Ok Gam all it says is its produced by Trains Magazine and gives credits to the Canadian govt. The Canadian National railway and the Canadian Pacific railway with thanks to the different preservation groups associated with the railroads. So it would seem if its bad info its coming from pretty high up in the railroads of your country and the historical groups that are up your way.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Jack sent me the basic idea in a PM, and I won't cut and paste, but it bears clarification: The CP Railway altered the course of the train track to prevent US RAILWAYS from invading Canadian territories.
If I got that wrong Jack, please correct me
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Nope thats it.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Kinda worked out the opposite way, though
CN has a line running right through the mid-west. Grand Trunk?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
You guys own a lot more then just old GT lines ! Most of the lines that were out of the great lakes are now CP and CN. They also interchange with CSX and NS here on the coast.
I guess you guys are slowly takeing over huh ?
Thats ok hockey will never catch on down here so were still safe.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Hockey won't catch on in Maryland? C'mon.. You guys love hockey and you know it. Heck, if San Jose can support a team, it's possible anywhere.
PAX
BLECH !!! I can't stand hockey ! If I wanted to watcha fight I'd trun on boxing, which I don't watch either.
Basicly if it doesn't have a car going real fast in a quarter mile I don't care for it. Monster trucks are fun too, but NASCAR is just too boring ! 3 hours of chaseing yourself in a circle ? And we make fun of dogs who chase thier tails ? Come on !
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Hockey? Trains? Dogs chasing their tails?
It's amazing.. I say that Canada should take over the USA because we have a war monger for a leader and we have WMD's, and everyone goes sideways to avoid discussing it.
Bush is more of a threat to the world than Saddam ever was, why is he still in office?
Bush has access to weapons, soldiers and has commited illegal actions, even by our own countries standards. Why is he still in office?
Answer: Canada hasn't taken over yet.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
