Collin Powell changed my mind

[Michael]

Cesar - Trying to learn English while posting in a politically charged thread will lead to many a correction of your spelling and grammer and many a flame as well.

It is difficult to express yourself properly unless you are bilingual. I was born and grew up in the Montreal area but my written French is too poor to let me ever consider getting into this type of discussion in a French forum.

As a Canadian, I'm somewhat surprised that Canada has not put themselves firmly behind the US on this issue. Canada has always been an ally that the US could count on (and vice versa). I do not think that Saddam Hussein is the right person to piss that away over.

Michael

 

[Cesar]

Michel c'est pas Saddam qui m'ennui mais ce sont c'est conare Americain qui pense que le monde c'est eux
et personne doit oppose la supreme americaine

 

[Michael]

"Michel c'est pas Saddam qui m'ennui mais ce sont c'est conare Americain qui pense que le monde c'est eux
et personne doit oppose la supreme americaine"

"Michael, it isn't Saddam who is my reason but I'm against America who thinks they are the world/the world is theirs and people have to oppose American Supremacy"

I've been living in the US for 10 years, so my French is rustier than ever before, but I think I got the gist of your statement. I wonder if you made spelling mistakes in your French, a couple of the words do not look right.

First, Michel is a girl's name. My name is Michael <grin - I know that Michel is French for Michael, but I never let my French friends call me Michel when I lived in Quebec and I'm not going to start now>.

Second, by opposing America here you are supporting Saddam Hussein. It doesn't matter what your intentions are, that is the result. You would have to believe that the US is so wrong in its decisions that a murderous dictator should be supported over the US. I can accept that people would think that supporting Saddam is the lesser of two evils. I think that it is a foolish opinion, but I can understand that there are people foolish enough to have that point of view.

Why, as a Canadian, would you fear the US and disagree with their stated course of action? I could understand it if your were the Saudis or Syrian, but I have trouble understanding why a Canadian would support Saddam over the US?

Third, American Supremacy would be a vast improvement for large chunks of the globe, so blindly opposing American Supremacy doesn't seem like the best course of action. I honestly believe that the USA is a great and good country and its people drink from the well of Liberty every day and would not commit the USA to being "Supreme". Iraq, and the other, small minority of rogue nations should be worried. The rest of the world should not worry.

Fourth, the USA is not alone in the world with their decision to confront and , if needed, attack Iraq. Many other nations will join in.

Michael

 

[james88]

Michel c'est pas Saddam qui m'ennui mais ce sont c'est conare Americain qui pense que le monde c'est eux et personne doit oppose la supreme americaine

But the thread is about Saddam and should US disarm him by force? Why do you think american think the world is them? If this is true, US would not provide prove to the UN!

 

[tbates757]

Originally posted by: Cesar
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">Only idiots will believe that crap of a proof, were was the US 5, 6, 10 years ago now they want to remove Sadam. The US people will believe Powell yes, but not the World. The Americans are the best in Propaganda. They do everything to get to that they want!! The Iraqi oil is a gold these days! I don?t like Sadam but I don?t trust the US empire either conquering the World in the name of security is stupid thing. The world will not site down and I will react. One more thing your network channels bias to your government will not show you the world reaction so that you will believe that the world is not against the war. I am Canadian and I hate world domination bam!

Yep... and that's why you are just some random nutcase on the internet...

 

[dabuddha]

"Michel it is not Saddam which me trouble but they is it is conare Americain which thinks that the world it is them and nobody must opposes supreme the americaine "

thanks to Babelfish
and it is a pretty retarded statement too

 

[gump47371]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: gump47371

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: gump47371

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Czar
after this I wont object to a war, but I wont support it

Even if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

what?

I look at this like I do abortion. There is no such thing as Pro Choice. If you are not Pro Life, then you are Pro Abortion.

then the world is truly black and white to you

Then we will agree to disagree. Just want to remind you, though, just because Pontius Pilot washed his hands, didn't mean he was blameless.

Pilate?

Mein schlecht, you are correct. Spelling never was my strong subject. I feel so dum.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: Cesar

i'm trying to learn English, it is good to know two languages

¿So French Canadians arent taught english early in thier schooling?
So are you all like Mexicans of the North?

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: bentwookie

You know they took a great risk of exposure of their spy capabilities..he mentioned one defectore is in hiding...but you should trust the government in this situation. Saddam has paid palestinian suicide bombers $20,000 a suicide...who's to say he won't give them anthrax next. Unfortunate it takes a "see it, to believe it" attitude from the public to accept the decision of a government trying to stabalize peace in the world.

Trust the government? Accept the decision of government? Believe it without seeing it?

That is not what a democracy is all about. We need an informed electorate, not one willing to blindly follow anywhere their government will lead them. We need to agree because we understand; not accept because we believe.

While I do not agree that Bush has made a good enough argument for war against Iraq, I can understand how others can reach the opposite conclusion. But let's make up our own minds -- don't put too much trust in the government or our elected officials.

Remember Richard Nixon!

:disgust:

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: bentwookie

You know they took a great risk of exposure of their spy capabilities..he mentioned one defectore is in hiding...but you should trust the government in this situation. Saddam has paid palestinian suicide bombers $20,000 a suicide...who's to say he won't give them anthrax next. Unfortunate it takes a "see it, to believe it" attitude from the public to accept the decision of a government trying to stabalize peace in the world.

Trust the government? Accept the decision of government? Believe it without seeing it?

That is not what a democracy is all about. We need an informed electorate, not one willing to blindly follow anywhere their government will lead them. We need to agree because we understand; not accept because we believe.

While I do not agree that Bush has made a good enough argument for war against Iraq, I can understand how others can reach the opposite conclusion. But let's make up our own minds -- don't put too much trust in the government or our elected officials.

Remember Richard Nixon!

:disgust:

You said it brotha!

 

[Gaard]

Michael - <<Second, by opposing America here you are supporting Saddam Hussein. It doesn't matter what your intentions are, that is the result.>>

I don't really agree with this statement...unless you're talking to Cesar specifically and not everyone who is taking a stance different than 100% pro-war.

C/P'd from another thread...
Gaard - <<To clarify my stance...
I believe SH is an evil person who shouldn't be in a position of power. If the Coalition of the Willing gets the nod from the UN I would stand behind the US and anybody else going in. If the UN doesn't give it's approval, doesn't that mean that they don't find an attack justified? You don't think it to be a little presumptuous of us to say that we know better?>>

IMO, it's not impossible to not support an attack at this time, but at the same time not support SH.

 

[Michael]

Gaard - In my opinion, the UN not agreeing on an attack is a choice to support Saddam Hussein over the US. Basically, the countries voting against it would be saying that they believe Iraq over the US and that they feel that the US is wrong and that Iraq will disarm and not be a threat without an attack being needed.

The US (and many other countries) no longer have any hope that Iraq will disarm on their own. The US (and others) have reserved their right to attack without "sanction" from the UN (that is not 100% true as it can be argued that no new resolution is needed).

Even the harshest critics of the UN would agree that a resolution woukld make it easier for some countries to aid the US in its efforts against Iraq. I would point out that the US is noting what countries are its friends and any country that requires UN approval before aiding the US will reap the consequences in the future. However, the US (and allies) understand that some of the countires involved are democracies that have to answer to their people. As such, I think the US and its people are understanding of why the UN is important to those countries.

I think you need to take a hard look at your stance on this. From my reading of it, you are saying that the US would be even more evil than Saddam Hussein if they act without a new UN resolution. I would like you to explain why you believe that to better understand the reasoning behind it.

Michael

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Michael
Gaard - In my opinion, the UN not agreeing on an attack is a choice to support Saddam Hussein over the US. Basically, the countries voting against it would be saying that they believe Iraq over the US and that they feel that the US is wrong and that Iraq will disarm and not be a threat without an attack being needed.

You like to read things in that aren't there don't you? THe countries may not support Iraq, BUT ALSO not think that war is the only option right now. I think that's exactly what they are saying.

I think you need to take a hard look at your stance on this. From my reading of it, you are saying that the US would be even more evil than Saddam Hussein if they act without a new UN resolution. I would like you to explain why you believe that to better understand the reasoning behind it.

Nobody said "the US would be more evil", again you are reading things in that are just not there. Could you just read what is written without adding your own BS to it?

A statement can be made that "it would be bad idea for the the US to invade Iraq without UN support" which is not the same thing as saying "US is More evil than Iraq".

Do have any reading comprehension abilities or is it that you still cannot see the difference between the two statements?

 

[Gaard]

Michael - <<I think you need to take a hard look at your stance on this. From my reading of it, you are saying that the US would be even more evil than Saddam Hussein if they act without a new UN resolution. I would like you to explain why you believe that to better understand the reasoning behind it.>>

I'm not looking at this with degree of evilness in mind. X is more evil than Y, or X is less evil than Y. Not important. It may sound a little too simple to be applied to this situation, but the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right' pretty much applies here, IMO. It is my opinion that if the UN says "Go in and take the bastard out' then we are cleared to do so, however if the UN doesn't give it's approval it just doesn't seem right that we would say that we know better and we're going to do what we feel like, with approval from the United Nations or not. Does it seem a little odd that one of the most often cited reasons for going in is that Iraq is violating UN resolutions, but we might be acting without UN approval?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Michael - <<I think you need to take a hard look at your stance on this. From my reading of it, you are saying that the US would be even more evil than Saddam Hussein if they act without a new UN resolution. I would like you to explain why you believe that to better understand the reasoning behind it.>>

I'm not looking at this with degree of evilness in mind. X is more evil than Y, or X is less evil than Y. Not important. It may sound a little too simple to be applied to this situation, but the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right' pretty much applies here, IMO. It is my opinion that if the UN says "Go in and take the bastard out' then we are cleared to do so, however if the UN doesn't give it's approval it just doesn't seem right that we would say that we know better and we're going to do what we feel like, with approval from the United Nations or not. Does it seem a little odd that one of the most often cited reasons for going in is that Iraq is violating UN resolutions, but we might be acting without UN approval?

Yes that is a clever paradox, however the UN has shown itself to be an inept and useless organization. I

 

[etech]

Powell: Inspectors Next Iraq Visit Key
"Powell said the administration would work toward a second U.N. resolution, but it could proceed with war without one. Powell said U.N. Security Council members knew when they approved a resolution last year calling on Iraq to disarm that Iraq would be subjected to military action if it failed to comply.

Powell said that at the time, he told council members who approved the resolution unanimously that they shouldn't vote for it if they wouldn't support a second resolution "when serious consequences are called for ? Don't play that double game." "

 

[Michael]

Actually, I see it as two issues:

1) Iraq is a threat to the United States. As such, there is no need for UN approval (politically, it is nice, but not needed)

2) The world, as voiced through the UN, also has viewed Iraq as a threat. It has passed resolutions on Iraq and these resolutions are being ignored and agreements made by Iraq violated. (I'm talking about Security Council resolutions, not General Assembly resolutions). The UN has to decide if it is going to do anything about it or just be a debating society. Note - this is a two-edged sword. Many on the conservative side of politics in the US do not want the UN to be an active agency and this may spur it along that way.

In regards to "two wrongs do not make a right", I'm willing to accept that war, sanctioned or unsanctioned by the UN is wrong and evil. I think you still need to answer the questions:

1) Are you convinced that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that they're hiding them

2) How can you justify not going to war at this time after over a decade of "chances" given to Iraq?

3) Since I've already agree that war is evil, is it more evil than Iraq. Remember, there's another adage, like "two wrongs ..." that says that all evil needs to do to triumph is for Good to do nothing.

Michael

Flavio - I just noticed your post. My reading comprehension is fine. However, as someone with over a decade of discussing points like this on the Internet, I have noted that it is important to list out what others words mean to me when I am stating my opinion. You may be so full of yourself and so much of a dick about others that you assume that everything that is written is clear and only can be read and responded to one way. I don't think that, so I respond the way I do. Gaard responded to my post (which was addressed to him) in the same vein and we're having a civil discussion about it, so I don't see your point.

I'm all ears as to what viable options there are other than going to war. Remember, I think that Iraq is a danger to the US and that means they're a danger to my and my family. Sanctions and Inspections have already been tried and failed. What else can be done?

 

[Gaard]

Michael - Sorry about the late response, I'm (trying) to do my taxes. Ugh, if I have figured correctly I'm paying the government ~$200 this year. The 7 G's in untaxed unemployment compensation probably was a contributing factor. It's all good I suppose.


To get back on topic I'll answer your questions...
1) Are you convinced that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that they're hiding them?
I think they probably do and probably are. Am I 100% certain? No. Does that mean I'm convinced? I suppose it does. Does it mean I think we are justified in possibly snubbing the UN and going in without a thumbs up from them? No.

2) How can you justify not going to war at this time after over a decade of "chances" given to Iraq?
Taking the risk of sounding too disrespectful, what's so damn special about at this time?

Before I answer your third question I'd like to state that I think there's a difference (actually, I hope there is because this is the opinion I have) between not wanting to go to war and not wanting to go to war without UN approval.

3) Since I've already agree that war is evil, is it more evil than Iraq. Remember, there's another adage, like "two wrongs ..." that says that all evil needs to do to triumph is for Good to do nothing.
Is war more evil than Iraq? IMO, there's no one answer. It would depend on the motives for war, wouldn't it? Is it your opinion that the only motive for attacking Iraq is to liberate it's people or elliminate a threat to (us/our allies)? When you say more evil than Iraq, are you talking about the governing body of Iraq or it's entirety...including all of it's citizens.



<<1) Iraq is a threat to the United States. As such, there is no need for UN approval (politically, it is nice, but not needed).>>

Of course, if you truly feel this way, then the questions become pointless. If we, as a nation, feel so threatened by Iraq, that war is positively the only answer then you're right, any approval isn't needed. I have to disagree with you on this point however. I don't feel that Iraq poses much of a threat to us, and even if it did, I don't feel a war would drastically reduce any threat that we are under.

 

[mrbentley]

hehehehehehehehehehe

 

[everestexpress]

I am amazed that you people are so easily swayed by Collin Powell's speech.... none of the proff is varified by the experts, no source has been given of his report. You have to think critically on this matter because it measn life of hundreds and millions. War is hell, no one wins war..
Don't believe what Collin Powell said without checking the facts and sources of this reports yourself... If you are a moron you could believe what ever Colliin Powell or Bush or Tony Blair says... check the facts.. don't blindly believe what you hear or see... seek the truth..

 

[everestexpress]

Here's to those who support war without reasons .....To those who believed mis-leadings of Collin Powelland Blair... Read if you care and think and pray. If you believe in god... Ask God or Jesus if he/she/ it wants America to bomb innocent Iraqis in the name of containing terrorism...

Ask yourself how many americans have Iraqis have killed since the gulf war??? Ask yourself how many hijackers were Iraqis?? Ask yourself who has atom bombs... Ask yourself where is Vin La Din? Could it be cover up for Bush's failure to find Vin la din???

We will not have a problem finding a bad guys in the world. We can even find worst than Saddam?? But that's the the point.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/02/08/MN200631.DTL

There's more... We need Jonny Cochran tear all the alligation of Powell and Blair a part.. where is rebuttal.... Security concil need to hear Iraqis side too...

 

[Moonbeam]

mrbentley, isn't it rich? Looks like government people are so convinced, and maybe with some reason, that people are morons that they have become ones themselves. I wonder how many people in the CIA have been demoted because they wouldn't 'cough' manufacture some dirt on Saddam.

It's about expanding America's dominence in the world. The rest is just a charade.

 

[mrbentley]

very rich indeed
Revealed: truth behind US 'poison factory' claim

Iraq disputes U.S. version of arms photos

MI6 and CIA: the new enemy within

 

[WalMart1564]

im ready to go get them