Proof that the war had nothing to do with WMDs or terrorism that my goldfish wouldn't deny

The following was practically said by our leaders themselves. Strange how CNN hasn't picked up on this.

Here is the very document from the neoconservative think tank "Project for a New American Century" written in 2000. On the board of directors for this think tank at the time were Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defense secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff)

Guess where I found this PDF? Right on their website. Can't really criticize the source.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

See page 26 for the following sentence.

"while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

It was planned all along folks.

Coincidentally enough, this vision for America needed to have a "catastrophic and catalyzing" event in order to happen quickly. See page 63 of this PDF.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Perl Harbor."

Well, we sure got one. (That incidentally used an attack method that the CIA was directly warned about the August before--while Bush was on vacation.)

Again, this was written in 2000. The cat's out of the bag.
Post edited by Sparkplug at 9/9/2003 4:03:00 AM

here's your sign.

You really are a nutcase.

So, do you believe that Clinton bombed Sudan and Iraq to distract from his legal problems?

To think that I got the "tin foil hat" title.

-pheirce

P.S. Where did you really get this information from? That PDF you "found" didn't say anything about Rumsfeld, Jeb or Libby. It did mention Cheney but not in any kind of advisory role.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

Not sure what all the fuss is about, these people dont make it a secret that they are realists/hawkish/neocons when it comes to geopolitical issues. Since when was it an embarrassment to admit you are a realist/neocon? If you believe in the philosophy of neoconservatism, admit it and move on. Realism is a valid theory, no reason to cry when people call you a realist or neocon. Of course valid doens't make it the right one

I think in this case Mockery is absolutely right, people need to get over this whole issue of political correctness, accept the label and quit the whining/crying.

odd, Conservatives tend to opperate on the Order theory, in that all groups work TOGETHER to help eachother out (IE tinkle-down economics, which never realy worked)
This plan seems to be based on the Conflict theory, where people of a larger social background will tend to unite against a common outside percieved threat.

Originally posted by: Sparta
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

Not sure what all the fuss is about, these people dont make it a secret that they are realists/hawkish/neocons when it comes to geopolitical issues. Since when was it an embarrassment to admit you are a realist/neocon? If you believe in the philosophy of neoconservatism, admit it and move on. Realism is a valid theory, no reason to cry when people call you a realist or neocon. Of course valid doens't make it the right one

I think in this case Mockery is absolutely right, people need to get over this whole issue of political correctness, accept the label and quit the whining/crying.

So then Liberals should accept the label of ignorant idiots? If someone feels the label isnt them they have every right to bitch and complain. In this media society a label can be very harmful. FYI

And please explain again Sparta how Saddam then killed over 100,000 of his own people who died of Sarin, VX, Mustard Gas, etc. Did their lungs just liquify on their own. Man, the liberal party is desparate for anything in this election...LMAO

And all of this info posted is a very common view. Would you rather have Russia or an Islamic controlled world? You liberals seem to want everything we have and enjoy, but dont want to pay for it. We are the best country or group to lead the world into the next century. We have the best form of gov't, economic model, etc. And every country tries to do things that puts their own country at the top of the game. YOu sparta dont seem to understand that at all. If its not us, then its someone else.

I laugh at the word War-Hawks Sure is funny how the liberals want to live in a society like we have, but are not willing to counter balence the growing strengths and cultures of other countries. think how women, gays, other groups would be treated if this was an Islamic dominated world or something like that. Just as a boxing champion must ever be vigilant when he is champion, we must also be. We will always have those comming after us because we are at the top. BUT whats suprising is LIBs are the biggest threat to America's way of life. FYI SPARTA...Its called life. Their will always be a dominant lifeform/power in anything.
Post edited by ~~Snake~~ at 9/9/2003 10:14:18 AM

_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

oooh boooo hoooo, we're the victem, we do all this great stuff and we get yelled at by mean stoopid head liberals.

harr, gimme a break.

Originally posted by: Coba|t

oooh boooo hoooo, we're the victem, we do all this great stuff and we get yelled at by mean stoopid head liberals.

harr, gimme a break.

Here is a Twix...Now eat it and pipe down
_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

Originally posted by: pheirce
You really are a nutcase.

So, do you believe that Clinton bombed Sudan and Iraq to distract from his legal problems?

To think that I got the "tin foil hat" title.

-pheirce

P.S. Where did you really get this information from? That PDF you "found" didn't say anything about Rumsfeld, Jeb or Libby. It did mention Cheney but not in any kind of advisory role.

lol Pheirce. The link is concrete bro. It's on their own site and it's dated. Face it, it's what we have been saying all along this war had absolutely nothing to do with a threat to the US. It was all political.

All you have to do is follow the evidence. PNAC that was loaded with Bush admin officials mentions a need for such a war. All justifications given prior to the war have yet to be proven.

Open your eyes, you fell for the lie.

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: Coba|t

oooh boooo hoooo, we're the victem, we do all this great stuff and we get yelled at by mean stoopid head liberals.

harr, gimme a break.

Here is a Twix...Now eat it and pipe down

That'd be a kit-kat there champ

lol.. ooopppssss
_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

Originally posted by: --DestinO--

Originally posted by: pheirce
You really are a nutcase.

So, do you believe that Clinton bombed Sudan and Iraq to distract from his legal problems?

To think that I got the "tin foil hat" title.

-pheirce

P.S. Where did you really get this information from? That PDF you "found" didn't say anything about Rumsfeld, Jeb or Libby. It did mention Cheney but not in any kind of advisory role.

lol Pheirce. The link is concrete bro. It's on their own site and it's dated. Face it, it's what we have been saying all along this war had absolutely nothing to do with a threat to the US. It was all political.

All you have to do is follow the evidence. PNAC that was loaded with Bush admin officials mentions a need for such a war. All justifications given prior to the war have yet to be proven.

Open your eyes, you fell for the lie.

So, you are with Sparkplug in believing that Bush planned 9-11 as well?

I'm thinking of starting a tin foil hat company and selling to the forumites here.

I'm still waiting to see these "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that the Bush administration said Iraq had, and then there's this whole N.Korea deal.


Bush: "Iraq has WoMD, we must stop them."

Hans Blix: "um.. no they don't."

Kim Il-Chong: "I have nukes and I'm not afraid to use them"

Bush: "we KNOW they do, we have "solid" proof, but we can't share that with anyone."

Kim Il-Chong: "Hello? I just said I have WoMD.. and I'm looking to use it/them"

Hans Blix: "Seriously now.. we've been looking for over a month and we can't find any proof, you can't find any proof, there is no evidence that Iraq poses any imminent threat to the world"

Bush: "Yes they do and yes they are, I know it! We're mobilizing forces right now to deal with this terrible threat to the world."

Kim Il-Chong: "Um.. guys?!? (taps microphone) Is this thing on? Sheesh, what's a 21st century madman gotta do nowadays to get noticed.... make mama jokes?"


I'm not going to question motives, ideologies or even to suggest some conspiracy theory, but I am curious on the pre-war priortization strategies employed by Coalition forces.

/shrug

Originally posted by: pheirce

Originally posted by: --DestinO--

Originally posted by: pheirce
You really are a nutcase.

So, do you believe that Clinton bombed Sudan and Iraq to distract from his legal problems?

To think that I got the "tin foil hat" title.

-pheirce

P.S. Where did you really get this information from? That PDF you "found" didn't say anything about Rumsfeld, Jeb or Libby. It did mention Cheney but not in any kind of advisory role.

lol Pheirce. The link is concrete bro. It's on their own site and it's dated. Face it, it's what we have been saying all along this war had absolutely nothing to do with a threat to the US. It was all political.

All you have to do is follow the evidence. PNAC that was loaded with Bush admin officials mentions a need for such a war. All justifications given prior to the war have yet to be proven.

Open your eyes, you fell for the lie.

So, you are with Sparkplug in believing that Bush planned 9-11 as well?

I'm thinking of starting a tin foil hat company and selling to the forumites here.

No I don't think Bush had a hand in planning it, that is worthy of a tin hat indeed. But then again 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, it was just coincidence that fell right into the PNAC plan. Once it occured the administration wasted no time in getting us into Iraq.

this is GIANT ofn worthy

Pheirce, I absolutely did not say that Bush or any administration officials did anything less than their best to protect this country from a horror like 9-11.

However, as you may have noticed, if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it begs the question. (You stated that question though, I didn't.) Connect the dots between these things however you like.

-Clinton was always lethargic about confronting Saudi terror links. He intervened in investegations into the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole and the U.S. embassies during his administration.

-Neocon think tank with 4 DoD officials and the president's bro leading it calls for the removal of Saddam as an excuse for expanding U.S. global military presence. Also directly states that a catastrophic event would be conveninet to its vision.

-Unlike Clinton who was merely lethargic, Bush boldly halts all investegations into Saudi terror links. Authorizes the departure of Saudi officials when the entire nation was under lockdown after 9-11. Stopped an investegation into al-Queda as soon as it led to members of the Saudi Royal family. Classified pages of the long-delayed 9-11 intelligence report that implicate Bin-laden family members currently prospering in Saudi-Arabia. [Greg Palast was leaked a copy of this ommitted section.]

-Time magazine reported that in March 2002, a full year before the invasion, Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, "F--- Saddam," Bush said. "We're taking him out." [Google that phrase if you don't believe it]

-The CIA had been warned of the dangers of airplane-projectile-hijacking as early as 1995. It had direct warning that such attacks might be being plotted in a manner that was related to domestic flight schools which was reported in August 2001.

-Bush vigorously opposes any serious investegation into intelligence failures related to 9-11. In fact, they're afraid to even use that word. It's an "inquiry" that they oppose.

-People have been plotting massive terrorist attacks against the U.S. for decades. If anybody in our government wanted one to happen, it wouldn't be a matter of doing anything more than declining to stop one. (And again Phierce, I am making no statement as to whether or not this was the case.)

To me, the facts are strong circumstantial evidence of something fishy that need to be seriously investegated. Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen with this congress and this administration.
Post edited by Sparkplug at 9/9/2003 1:12:19 PM

Originally posted by: Sparkplug
Pheirce, I absolutely did not say that Bush or any administration officials did anything less than their best to protect this country from a horror like 9-11.

However, as you may have noticed, if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it begs the question. (You stated that question though, I didn't.) Connect the dots between these things however you like.

-Clinton was always lethargic about confronting Saudi terror links. He intervened in investegations into the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole and the U.S. embassies during his administration.

-Neocon think tank with 4 DoD officials and the president's bro leading it calls for the removal of Saddam as an excuse for expanding U.S. global military presence. Also directly states that a catastrophic event would be conveninet to its vision.

-Unlike Clinton who was merely lethargic, Bush boldly halts all investegations into Saudi terror links. Authorizes the departure of Saudi officials when the entire nation was under lockdown after 9-11. Stopped an investegation into al-Queda as soon as it led to members of the Saudi Royal family. Classified pages of the long-delayed 9-11 intelligence report that implicate Bin-laden family members currently prospering in Saudi-Arabia. [Greg Palast was leaked a copy of this ommitted section.]

-Time magazine reported that in March 2002, a full year before the invasion, Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, "F--- Saddam," Bush said. "We're taking him out." [Google that phrase if you don't believe it]

-The CIA had been warned of the dangers of airplane-projectile-hijacking as early as 1995. It had direct warning that such attacks might be being plotted in a manner that was related to domestic flight schools which was reported in August 2001.

-Bush vigorously opposes any serious investegation into intelligence failures related to 9-11. In fact, they're afraid to even use that word. It's an "inquiry" that they oppose.

-People have been plotting massive terrorist attacks against the U.S. for decades. If anybody in our government wanted one to happen, it wouldn't be a matter of doing anything more than declining to stop one. (And again Phierce, I am making no statement as to whether or not this was the case.)

To me, the facts are strong circumstantial evidence of something fishy that need to be seriously investegated. Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen with this congress and this administration.

Get your facts straight spark...Bush NOWHERE stops the investigation into the Saudi Terror Links...Its called being diplomatic...You guys are the warhawks in regard to that...Saudi Arabia is cracking down and several Imams have come forward saying Wasabi Islam is promoting hate groups...But no where is there proof that Bush is against checking into the links between Saudi Arabia and Terror..WAY to create that lie in your mind

And BUsh doesnt stop investigations into 9-11...Their already have been many...All liberals want to do is try to find some wrong to use in an election year because they cant do shit right ever.

You cite the CIA again, and then you take them out of the equation with Iraq...That is pathetic...
_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

Proof that the war had EVERYTHING to do with WMDs & terrorism that even you Sparky...regardless if you want to believe it or not... cannot deny. Anyone who denies what is written below as not being accurate is oblivious to what has gone on the past decade. In fact, I don't care if you think it's true or not since this isn't a "Dom's Opinion" speech... This came (copy/paste) directly from the sources who have dealt directly with this very issue - the United Nations. This is not a "The US can't find the proof, damn those warhawks". The entire security council of the United Nations has acknowledged Iraq having WMDs and have written resolutions after resolutions regarding them and in the 1441 resolution they clearly stated that Iraq was in breach, and being in breach was a violation of the CEASE FIRE. In 1991, while you folks were getting Too Legit to Quit in your fancy MC Hammer clothes, on the other side of the world... the Gulf War never ended. It was put on halt, to give Iraq an opportunity to fully comply. They never did.

These are part of Resolution 1441 that purely, internationally, and legally justified what took place this year in Iraq. This wasn't some sort of Gulf War II... this wasn't some Bush out to wage war for no good reason.... The Gulf War never ended. It was a cease fire based on Iraq's compliance which they never came through on...so the cease fire was lifted and the war from the 90s was carried out.
------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to
return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including
the obligations on Iraq contained therein

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular
through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687
(1991)

Oh... and for folks whining their bleeding hearts to sleep here that there is no link between Iraq and terrorism... here's a section of Resolution 687 from April 3rd 1991 from the United Nations Security Council you might want to read and then proceed to put foot-in-mouth. Again, that isn't some "United States" accusation. That was a direct threat, taken very seriously by the United Nations.

Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) - Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism
Against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq
Post edited by DoMiNuS at 9/9/2003 2:38:53 PM

you guys gotta offer something better than this.. that was too easy.

Excellent Post Dominus...Hail to the Bunny
_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

Sparkplug, your argument is about as solid as a bowl of pudding.

i wish they can find those wmd's soon.

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: Sparta
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

Not sure what all the fuss is about, these people dont make it a secret that they are realists/hawkish/neocons when it comes to geopolitical issues. Since when was it an embarrassment to admit you are a realist/neocon? If you believe in the philosophy of neoconservatism, admit it and move on. Realism is a valid theory, no reason to cry when people call you a realist or neocon. Of course valid doens't make it the right one

I think in this case Mockery is absolutely right, people need to get over this whole issue of political correctness, accept the label and quit the whining/crying.

So then Liberals should accept the label of ignorant idiots? If someone feels the label isnt them they have every right to bitch and complain. In this media society a label can be very harmful. FYI

And please explain again Sparta how Saddam then killed over 100,000 of his own people who died of Sarin, VX, Mustard Gas, etc. Did their lungs just liquify on their own. Man, the liberal party is desparate for anything in this election...LMAO

And all of this info posted is a very common view. Would you rather have Russia or an Islamic controlled world? You liberals seem to want everything we have and enjoy, but dont want to pay for it. We are the best country or group to lead the world into the next century. We have the best form of gov't, economic model, etc. And every country tries to do things that puts their own country at the top of the game. YOu sparta dont seem to understand that at all. If its not us, then its someone else.

I laugh at the word War-Hawks Sure is funny how the liberals want to live in a society like we have, but are not willing to counter balence the growing strengths and cultures of other countries. think how women, gays, other groups would be treated if this was an Islamic dominated world or something like that. Just as a boxing champion must ever be vigilant when he is champion, we must also be. We will always have those comming after us because we are at the top. BUT whats suprising is LIBs are the biggest threat to America's way of life. FYI SPARTA...Its called life. Their will always be a dominant lifeform/power in anything.

You see, what snake just wrote is another example of what im saying. He seems to feel that neocon is a bad word and is embarrassed of the beliefs it represents, hence his defensive stance and his need to belittle other peoples beliefs.

Notice how he wants me to explain saddams actions, even though that has nothing to do with what i said. Again just being overly defensive.

He also feels that being called a neocon is on some level equivalent to calling someone an ignorant liberal...again just silly reasoning.

He then accuses all "libs" of being the greatest threat to America...again just silly childish statements. Absolutly nothing to do with the idea of being called a neocon.

This is all an example of political correctness and not accepting a quite valid label. Also notice i never called anyone on here a neocon.

I havn't seen any of the people in our admininitraton actually cry and whine when people label them neocons, just some folks on here apparently want to keep defending them from this "evil" label.

As for labels being hurtful...as Mockery likes to say, get over it. People need to not be so defensive when people label someone for what they are. Right?

And Snake, as for your theory of survival of the fittest. Neocons believe that power is based primarily on military strength right? and we all know that military strength is entwined with economic strength. Based on that, and the ideals of Capitalism, China will become the economic powerhouse of this century and the next superpower. Do you truly want another Cold War, i sure dont, but that will be the only way we could try to stay ahead, assuming we continue to follow Capitalist ideals. In the end the largest consumer market in the world will win. Empires will aways rise and fall...we are no different in that sense...I would just rather live in a world where economic ties and globalization push everyone up together in terms of living standards, rather than having everyone keep wanting to be the #1 superpower all the time.

There is defintely a place for realism in the short term, it attempts to get us to a peaceful world, but once we're there, realism falls short in having a vision for keeping that peace, since it is limited to always vying to be #1. As more and more countries become democracies, mostly enticed by the economic benefits, there will be less and less of a role for realism/neocons.

The challenge therefore for realists, is to continue to find threats in the world, that require military force. This is why China splits the Republican party in half, one half, the economic liberal half, wants more economic trade with them and cares less if they become more powerful, as long as they get free trade, since our consumer goods become cheaper for that. The other half, uses human rights as their excuse, but really they dont want to trade with the "commies" for fear of making them too powerful. This fits right in with the traditional realist view of economics, that everything is zero sum, and protectionism makes us more powerful.

What you fail to get Sparta is that you liberals use it as a slam. Not us...You seem to forget a lot of things. I am not being defensive at all, merely showing that labels can be damaging. And you liberals who hate generalizations and stereotypes again are hypocrites and use them...

I dont believe in what you call a Neoconservative...I have very conservative values and very liberal ones...So the label is a farce...

I believe and its showing now, that their will always be a dominant player as a country or power. Its the nature of man. And those who lack strength or power to enforce peace, will be beat or overwhelm by those who think they can achieve domination for their religion, culture, ect by force. I saw a commentary on how Nato has become so weak because Europes Military keeps getting smaller and smaller and Smaller and smaller, etc. Who will then counter balence the Saddams, North Korea's, Irans of the world??? If we dont then those cultures who do have large militaries will...

It would be great if everyone believed in peace, freedoms, etc. But a majority of the middle east, africa and North Korea DONT... And just as a child with NO rules will become a monster, so would these countries if the US doesnt act a worldy parent/police force..
Post edited by ~~Snake~~ at 9/9/2003 3:09:49 PM

_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

Originally posted by: DoMiNuS
you guys gotta offer something better than this.. that was too easy.

Only one problem Dom. You can't prove a damn thing.

No link to terrorists that threaten the US
No WMD
No nuclear program
No drones capable of delivering WMD's

Oh yeah and there is one other tiny little thing. You site UN findings and you forgot to mention the UN voted against this war.

So come on Dom, you got to give me something better then that. That was just too easy.

Originally posted by: Respice
Sparkplug, your argument is about as solid as a bowl of pudding.

So then you don't take Cheney and comapny seriously? Because sparks report came from them.

Originally posted by: --DestinO--

Originally posted by: DoMiNuS
you guys gotta offer something better than this.. that was too easy.

Only one problem Dom. You can't prove a damn thing.

No link to terrorists that threaten the US
No WMD
No nuclear program
No drones capable of delivering WMD's

Oh yeah and there is one other tiny little thing. You site UN findings and you forgot to mention the UN voted against this war.

So come on Dom, you got to give me something better then that. That was just too easy.

Wrong...The Security council did. Big difference...
And the security council through their IN-decisivness gave enough time that even a retarded child could have hidden or got rid of them.
Post edited by ~~Snake~~ at 9/9/2003 3:14:34 PM

_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
What you fail to get Sparta is that you liberals use it as a slam. Not us...You seem to forget a lot of things. I am not being defensive at all, merely showing that labels can be damaging. And you liberals who hate generalizations and stereotypes again are hypocrites and use them...

I dont believe in what you call a Neoconservative...I have very conservative values and very liberal ones...So the label is a farce...

I believe and its showing now, that their will always be a dominant player as a country or power. Its the nature of man. And those who lack strength or power to enforce peace, will be beat or overwhelm by those who think they can achieve domination for their religion, culture, ect by force. I saw a commentary on how Nato has become so weak because Europes Military keeps getting smaller and smaller and Smaller and smaller, etc. Who will then counter balence the Saddams, North Korea's, Irans of the world??? If we dont then those cultures who do have large militaries will...

It would be great if everyone believed in peace, freedoms, etc. But a majority of the middle east, africa and North Korea DONT... And just as a child with NO rules will become a monster, so would these countries if the US doesnt act a worldy parent/police force..

First liberals do use it as a slam, which is more reason for conservatives to take the word back from them. I will say it again, realism/neocon IS a valid theory of governance. I'm not calling you a neocon (although i think your views of int'l relations fit right into that theory), i was only referring to people in the administration who are, and who dont disagree with the label given to them.

Second are you not being hypocritical also by saying that labels can be damaging (not sure on your views on political correctness). That was the point i was actually making...However in this case it just seems to me that it is political correctness at work.

Third, the Saddamns, North Koreas and Irans of the world may be the current enemies, but its the Chinas of the world that worry realists the most. Mainly because they have lost the battle to economically isolate them, and there are no military options for taking care of China.

But Dom, Even Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, who wanted time to finish weapons inspections, doesn't believe there were WMDs.

If they had this massive amount of WMDs, wouldn't they be found by now? How long will it be before the dihard accept that they aren't there? Five years? Ten Years?

There are some die-hard Elvis fans that won't accept that he's dead. People who believe that Iraq had WMDs to threaten the U.S. that justified invading them are starting to sound like those Elvis fans.

China is working with us...China is secular. China isnt sabre rattling...They are working with the International community. They are no angel, but they are progressing towards our the western value systems...Look at Russia...They are alot like us and 30 years ago people would have freaked out if you said that. The countries that scare me are teh ones who DO not separate state and church. Or incorporate hate towards other groups in their state doctrines like most countries in the Middle east do.

We have a foundation to work with China and expect the best. Those other examples are going down the wrongs paths.



PS...And Sparkplug...again explain if they didnt have WMD how did over 100,000 people die from VX, Sarin, Mustard, etc????? You know the answer. You are just afraid to say it...And their are MANY UN inspectors who take the opposite view of Hans Blix...So your point is moot.
Post edited by ~~Snake~~ at 9/9/2003 3:35:08 PM

_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

Destino,

you go right on over to the United Nations website and provide us unknowing people a link to where the United Nations voted down the war in Iraq.

Surely there'd be a statement by the UN on their site. Surely they'd have some sort of document... as they have documents on everything they do on their site.

You find that, untainted, and officialy documented by the United Nations and I will gladly stand corrected.

Until then, I have already provided all the info you or anyone here would need that would lead you in the direction of your precious proof. It's called the United Nations. Unlike you, they are actually in charge of this sort of stuff. Unlike me, they are actually burdened with providing the knowledge and proof. I don't need to debate, argue or mud sling a damn thing. Thankfully. That's why it was so easy... the info was visibly right in front of me... a simple copy/paste of the things that took place; away from the judgemental ways of journalism and op-ed rhetoric. Go look for yourself... that's what it's there for in the first place.

But could you ever accept being second to China, ecomically, and eventually militarily. How would that fit in with your survival of the fittest mentality. If you can accept it, kudos to you, and i have underestimated you.

Originally posted by: Sparta
But could you ever accept being second to China, ecomically, and eventually militarily. How would that fit in with your survival of the fittest mentality. If you can accept it, kudos to you, and i have underestimated you.

I can accept taht easily...The concept isnt about one country, its about a value system. I dont view Britian as an adversary with us. Because they have the same values as us...So if China was a DEMOCRACY and had a larger military and economic model, I have no issues with it. They would be peaceful and more worried about profits and global trade if thats the case.


_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

Originally posted by: DoMiNuS
Destino,

you go right on over to the United Nations website and provide us unknowing people a link to where the United Nations voted down the war in Iraq.

Surely there'd be a statement by the UN on their site. Surely they'd have some sort of document... as they have documents on everything they do on their site.

You find that, untainted, and officialy documented by the United Nations and I will gladly stand corrected.

Until then, I have already provided all the info you or anyone here would need that would lead you in the direction of your precious proof. It's called the United Nations. Unlike you, they are actually in charge of this sort of stuff. Unlike me, they are actually burdened with providing the knowledge and proof. I don't need to debate, argue or mud sling a damn thing. Thankfully. That's why it was so easy... the info was visibly right in front of me... a simple copy/paste of the things that took place; away from the judgemental ways of journalism and op-ed rhetoric. Go look for yourself... that's what it's there for in the first place.

The vote never took place because it would not have gone thru. The UN later chastised the US for going at it without putting it to vote. Why do you think the UN isn't in charge of Iraq? It's because they had nothing to do with the war at all.

The US went around them and now must go back and beg France and Germany to suuport UN involvement.

Actually, if you read/search that entire PNAC PDF, it has some interesting comments about the need to contain China and bolster our military presence in Southeast Asia.

(Of course, that has nothing whatsoever to do with our eventual invastion of Afghanistan less than a year after showering the Taliban with tens of millions in aid.)

Originally posted by: DoMiNuS
Destino,

you go right on over to the United Nations website and provide us unknowing people a link to where the United Nations voted down the war in Iraq.

Surely there'd be a statement by the UN on their site. Surely they'd have some sort of document... as they have documents on everything they do on their site.

You find that, untainted, and officialy documented by the United Nations and I will gladly stand corrected.

Until then, I have already provided all the info you or anyone here would need that would lead you in the direction of your precious proof. It's called the United Nations. Unlike you, they are actually in charge of this sort of stuff. Unlike me, they are actually burdened with providing the knowledge and proof. I don't need to debate, argue or mud sling a damn thing. Thankfully. That's why it was so easy... the info was visibly right in front of me... a simple copy/paste of the things that took place; away from the judgemental ways of journalism and op-ed rhetoric. Go look for yourself... that's what it's there for in the first place.

I havn't studied the way the UN works in a while, but to the best of my knowledge, the no vote on the authorization of war by the UN does not exist becuase we, the US, did not submit the resolution to the council.

We would only present the resolution if we knew that we could get it through the UN, and a no vote on it would have made the war seem even more illegal than the UN currently considers it to be. Hence the reason we circumvented the UN, we wanted one particular answer and did not receive it.

This isnt being critical of the US, its common procedure to only present resolutions that one knows will go through, as it failing also conveys a statements in and of itself. This is my main criticism of the UN, they need to become more open and lucid with the inner workings, less of this behind the scenes diplomacy.

As for the matter of why there is no resolution condemning the war, the way that works, is it only takes one member of the five Security Council veto powers to veto a whole resolution. Hence the US and UK would have vetoed any such condemnation of the war. And so this resolution was also never presented.

Edit: Basically what Dest said.
Post edited by Sparta at 9/9/2003 4:07:30 PM

pftttt... and to think I was over here ready to stand up in a pink bunny suit for you Destino.

Back to work I go folks... have a good one.

Originally posted by: Sparta

Originally posted by: DoMiNuS
Destino,

you go right on over to the United Nations website and provide us unknowing people a link to where the United Nations voted down the war in Iraq.

Surely there'd be a statement by the UN on their site. Surely they'd have some sort of document... as they have documents on everything they do on their site.

You find that, untainted, and officialy documented by the United Nations and I will gladly stand corrected.

Until then, I have already provided all the info you or anyone here would need that would lead you in the direction of your precious proof. It's called the United Nations. Unlike you, they are actually in charge of this sort of stuff. Unlike me, they are actually burdened with providing the knowledge and proof. I don't need to debate, argue or mud sling a damn thing. Thankfully. That's why it was so easy... the info was visibly right in front of me... a simple copy/paste of the things that took place; away from the judgemental ways of journalism and op-ed rhetoric. Go look for yourself... that's what it's there for in the first place.

I havn't studied the way the UN works in a while, but to the best of my knowledge, the no vote on the authorization of war by the UN does not exist becuase we, the US, did not submit the resolution to the council.

We would only present the resolution if we knew that we could get it through the UN, and a no vote on it would have made the war seem even more illegal than the UN currently considers it to be. Hence the reason we circumvented the UN, we wanted one particular answer and did not receive it.

This isnt being critical of the US, its common procedure to only present resolutions that one knows will go through, as it failing also conveys a statements in and of itself. This is my main criticism of the UN, they need to become more open and lucid with the inner workings, less of this behind the scenes diplomacy.

As for the matter of why there is no resolution condemning the war, the way that works, is it only takes one member of the five Security Council veto powers to veto a whole resolution. Hence the US and UK would have vetoed any such condemnation of the war. And so this resolution was also never presented.

Edit: Basically what Dest said.

We would have put the resolution up, but the moron French stated NO MATTER WHAT that they would vote NO...
_______________________________________________________________
"You get more with kind words and a gun than you do with just kind words"

Damn those 'moron FRENCH' for having their own opinion.

Originally posted by: Razer_guy
Damn those 'moron FRENCH' for having their own opinion.

I'm sure that French "opinion" wasn't influenced by self interests either. Kind of the way they benevolently helped us fight our Revolutionary War against the British, right? There was, after all, nothing in it for them to help us. Hahahaah

Point being, every country (ours included) acts only when it is in their best interests to do so.