Why I'm voting for Bush

[postaldudeleo]

Well Im starting to see your point of view...............

 

But still, Most leaders of terrorists are intellectuals but the people who actually kill themselves arent. The leader that you speak of are smart in the way that they can get people to follow them through creating chaos and sticking the blame on others.

 

But anyhow, ill change pychopath to seriel killer. It fits that catogory better to include not just the main body but also the leaders.

 

But I really suggest reading Machiavelli.............

[Darnoc]

Machiavelli, the guy who defended Absolutism? The guy who has written a book how a ruler should rule? I read some of his work, absolutely idiotic, he is giving reasons why there should be only one ruler, why it is just that this one ruler rules and what methods he should use to keep his power.

[Malchik]

You are referring to 'The Prince'? I thought most politicians, whether they rule by the ballot or the bullet, imbibed it with their mother's milk. Some of it is used loosely in what we call 'spin' or misinformation, or 'the truth, and nothing but the truth' but not 'the whole truth'.

 

Politics is a dirty game and attracts dirty players. We shouldn't be too surprised by what they do. However when they pretend to hold the moral high ground, sorry about the cliche, we equally well know they have something they are trying to hide.

 

Work it out from there.

[Eiade]

Machiavelli's book 'The Prince' is all about one strategy: the ends justify means. Machiavelli says that morals should have no dealings with the government at all, and we should try to accomplish things by any means necessary, and ignore ethics and morals. That would NEVER fly in today's world. EVER.

[Darnoc]

Ah, yes "the prince", just forgot the title, was some time ago since I read it...

 

By the way, politicians are doing just that all time: Talking about morals and ethics, but when it comes to achieve their goals, they use different methods... as suggested by Machiavelli. He wrote that the ruler must act as if he was ethical and followed the morals, but in reality he doesn't.

[Zmid]

And the people who were actually IN Iraq, looking for these weapons, being fed this information and acting on it were finding NOTHING!!!!  Not a damn thing!!!!

 

Haha!! Gee, maybe that's because the inspectors were giving the Iraqi's 24 hours notice before they ever showed up on an inspection site!! And how about the fact that there were several locations that Iraqi's NEVER allowed inspections. The inspections were a joke that had 12 years of failure.

There's no other way to put this - that's just a load of bollocks. The Weapons Inspectors did do scheduled inspections, yes. They also regularly did surprise inspections. They called this their 'shake the tree' tactic. It was designed to make the Iraqis so suspicious and paranoid about the weapons inspectors turning up unannounced that they couldn't risk trying to develop WMD even if they wanted to. There is also records of UNSCOM destroying large quantities of WMD in the early 90s, and claims that could not be fully verified that the Iraqis destroyed more off their own back.

 

This does not sound like a 'complete failure' to me.

 

Secondly, there is NOWHERE in Iraq that the Iraqis have never allowed inspections. As I have said in another thread, there were a few places where UNSCOM was not allowed access to, then threats were made and Iraq backed down and allowed access.

 

Even if this was true, we now have the run of Iraq. If the weapons were there, as you seem to be implying, why is there still no sign of them, not even traces that would have told us they were there, but are no longer?

 

Not necessarily. It simply proved that the inspections were never going to work and inspectors were going to continue to get stonewalled, as they had been for the previous 12 years.

 

Not true. See above.

 

In case you forget.....please write this down and write it on a chalkboard many times - Hans Blix NEVER confirmed that Iraq had come into compliance with the UN resolutions. That means, Saddam never proved he disarmed. So why in the hell are you implying Iraq disarmed when "the actual people on the ground" DID NOT say this??

 

And please write this down and write it on a chalkboard many times - this is because he asked for a few more months from the US and UK to complete his job and WASN'T GIVEN IT!!! Hans Blix's 'final' report wasn't a final report at all - it was actually an INTERIM report - a report on his progress. He said he was receiving a 'high level' of compliance from Iraq, and that there was 'no smoking gun', and that he could complete his work and definitively answer the question 'Does Iraq have WMD?' in 'not weeks, and not years, but months', and the US and UKs response to that was to go to war.

 

Furthermore, you can't destroy all of the WMDs without evidence of it.

 

Evidence was found at the claimed site of destruction. What was unclear was exactly how much was destroyed.

 

In fact, documenting the destruction of the weapons would have been something they would have desparately wanted to do, to prove their compliance to the UN. No such documentation was ever presented.

 

Even when such documentation would have proved that Iraq had WMD when they said they didn't and would quite possibly have triggered a war? On the contrary, I think Saddam tried to keep his WMD, found it impossible, then destroyed it as secretly as possible, then, in turn, found it impossible to hide the fact he'd done this, so admitted what he'd done.

 

Saddam had over 12 years of weapons violations, sactions, and over 17 broken UN resolutions. Blix never even ONCE confirmed that Saddam had come into compliance with any of the resolutions.

 

Firstly, Blix also never confirmed Saddam DID have WMD.

 

Secondly, you're adopting Bush and Blair's original line - Saddam broke UN Resolutions. The only problem with this is that the UN was never involved with this war, so that is moot, and even, actually reinforces the fact the war is illegal.

 

HAHA!! No, you are expressing the thoughts of a logical mind. Here is how Saddam's wacked out mind would have seen his situation - "These evil white infidels are not going to alter my plans to make Iraq the first Arab superpower with nuclear capability, so we can have the power to challenge the evil Christian demons (the US) and take back our holy land from the infidel Jews!!" These people are religious psychos, hellbent on carrying out Jihad, not modern rationalists concerned about how they appear to the world.

 

You seem to be under the impression Saddam was a religious fanatic or sommat. Newsflash - HE WASN'T!!!!! Iraq under Saddam was one of the few (if not the only) secular state in an Islamic region. This is, in fact, the main reason Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam. A secular Islamic state was practically heresy to him. Saddam appeared to be sympathetic to the views of the extremist Muslim terrorist groups, but only when it suited his purpose. Saddam only really cared about two things - himself, and holding onto power in Iraq.

 

All the proof we need is our own records of what WE (the US) sold to him!! We knew he had them, because we gave them to him! Every intelligence agency in the world was aware that Saddam had WMDs. The UN knew this as well, that is why they never lifted the weapon sactions on Iraq, or declared that Iraq had come into compliance with the resolutions. You cannot destroy that many weapons and chemical agents - and HAVE NO RECORD OF IT! Think about it dude!! If you intend to destroy your weapons so you could come into compliance, documenting the destruction of the weapons would be priority NUMBER ONE!!. Without empirical proof of the destruction of the weapons, there is no way one can prove they disarmed! The burden of proof has always been on IRAQ to produce the evidence of the weapon's destruction. Ie, Time, place, method, who destroyed them, where they were destroyed, where were their parts disposed, etc. No such documentation was ever offered to the world community, even though it would have STRONGLY been in Saddam's interest to provide it. The fact it was not provided is proof that no such documentation exists. No such documentation exists because no weapons were destroyed.

 

I've already addressed all your points here, so I won't repeat myself.

 

So where are the WMDs? No one knows....perhaps they were buried somewhere we'll never find them. But chances are, they were secretly smuggled to another Arab country.....either Iran, Syria, or perhaps Jordan.

 

You really think that, in the run up to war, the US and UK intelligence services would really have been lax enough to allow convoy after convoy after convoy of WMD drive out of the country without spotting it, especially as they would have needed to have been good enough to discover what must have been an incredibly well concealed stash of WMD in order to go to war in the first place? If they were that good, and knew where the WMD was, even generally, they would have been scrutinising anything that was even heading in the general direction of the border so closely that they would have been able to tell what the truck drivers had for breakfast.

 

LOL! Dude, have you been living in a cave? It has been well-known for years that the US and other Allied forces have wanted Saddam out of power. It has been their "objective" ever since the first Gulf war. Clinton had ordered designated bombings of select Iraqi sites throughout his entire adminstration, and made public speeches stating that Saddam was dangerous, had WMDs, and posed a potential threat to the civilized world. These charges are not unique to "Bush's administration", as so many ignorant ideologues like to claim.

 

So your response to me giving you details of documentary evidence that the US government did not give Saddam's Human Rights abuses as a reason for going to war and pointing out that, if Saddam's Human Rights abuses was a reason for going to war, then the US Government blatently lied to the Senate is that 'this is OK because it was widely known that this was the case'? I have to ask, what planet do you live on?

 

Whats quite sad is all you want to talk about is the WMDs. You don't want to talk about all the mass-graves that were found, and how Saddam was responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people.

 

This is largely irrelevant because the removal of Saddam was a by-product of the war. It's a happy by-product, but just a by-product, nonetheless.

 

You don't want to talk about the torture chambers, and the rapes rooms, and the beatings, etc.

 

Two words - Abu Ghraib.

 

It seems that if world affairs were left to you, Saddam and his henchmen would be still in power, playing an endless game of cat and mouse with the weapons inspectors, still raping, still beating, still filling the mass graves.

 

If world affairs were left to me this war would have been fought and won for the right reasons, not the wrong ones, about 20 years ago. Assuming, of course, Saddam got into power in the first place.

 

No contradiction. No one ever said the intelligence reports were completely wrong, which is what you are suggesting I was suggesting (which I was not). They were partially wrong. In other words, there were some technical details (some statistical information about weapons, locations, etc) that were in error. They thought Saddam had put weapons in certain places he had not. They also had some false information about Iraq's ability to deploy them. Another possible explanation is they found that the weapons may have been moved at some point between the time the reports were put together, and when the ground forces inspected those locations after the war. We announced the invasion way ahead of time, so Saddam had AMPLE time to smuggle the weapons out of the country, or bury them in places we may never find.

 

Right, so what you're saying is that they got right the claim that Saddam had WMD, but the actual evidence that backs this claim up is wrong.

 

 

EDIT: Bloody hell!!! Monster post alert!!!! :P

[postaldudeleo]

Yes, but back to world peace, that book says that there should be one ruler if peace ever happens but usaully peace lasts for about a year and then all hell breaks loose like with Lenin in Russia.

 

Anyhow, but the fact is that there will be no way to achieve total world peace though as Iv stated before. :( The fact remains that to unify something you need to put it under one rule so people would stop bickering and arguing but in the end you get crap like saddam.

 

Thus sadley world peace would not be an option ever unless somehow everycountry but one is blown up (which hopefull doesnt happen).

 

Well then you could technically do it with setting a common enemy with lies like hitler did but then still you end up with a a-hole male without a father who kills anybody who looks at him funny.....................

 

Yes, technically ends justifies means which technically is correct but to a certain point though......nothing overly to that end like dictators killing people just to stay in power a while longer becaus they belive they can blah blah blah ect.

 

Technically though, as long as there is a UN style world government then there will never be total peace as people will still argue and piss off at one another.............

 

So in conclusion there will never be world peece until the world goes under totalerism rule. But that would suck so it hopefully woulndnt ever happen.......................

[Darnoc]

There are methods in order to achieve world peace. But there has to be a group of humans, willing to do it without moral or ethical thoughts.

 

What am I talking about? Well, there are acctually various methods. So let me present them.

 

1. The intellectual elite unites in order to reach one goal: Control over the major governments in the world. Not necessarily direct control, but enough control to provoce a devasting war which would exterminate almost all human beings, with the exception of the intellectual elite and some humans of lesser intelligence as workforce for the new ruling class.

 

2. Intellectuals again unite in order to gain control and then they bring in a new system of government. New classes are created, no longer by birth or by richness, but by intelligence. The higher your intelligence, the better your abilities and the greater your experience, the higher you are inside society. Governments are no longer elected, but those of the most highest intelligence with the gifts of organization are the only humans which are allowed in government. The major goal of this new rule of intelligence is to give every human being his perfect job, where he can serve society in the most sufficient way. The human individual does, at least by the new ideology, only serve one purpose: to serve society in the most effienct way. Of course with the exception of the new ruling class who all live like gods on earth. They might even consider to let the lesser population worship them as gods and thus control the population through religion. Big Brother is watching you! :D George Orwell saw it coming...

 

3. The governments of this planet agree on a planetary government in which every nation has its representive. This government acctually has power to force its will on unwilling nations, because the major forces of the world agree on lending their armies to the cause of the planetary government. Thus the major forces (like USA, Russia, China) still have more power than other nations and are satisfied. Because of the concentration of forces, unwilling nations have no other choice than to follow or be invaded.

[Zmid]

3. The governments of this planet agree on a planetary government in which every nation has its representive. This government acctually has power to force its will on unwilling nations, because the major forces of the world agree on lending their armies to the cause of the planetary government. Thus the major forces (like USA, Russia, China) still have more power than other nations and are satisfied. Because of the concentration of forces, unwilling nations have no other choice than to follow or be invaded.

That actually sounds like the basic idea of the UN, but on a totally global scale.

 

In theory, the best way to actually get world peace is really a dictatorship, as postaldudeleo said, except, instead of it being a malign dictatorship (a la Saddam), it would need to be a benign one - a dictator who used his power solely to benefit the people he ruled. The only real problem is choosing the right person to be the dictator, because, once he's in, there's no real way to get him out again. My own personal opinion is that such a person doesn't exist, but I may be wrong.

[Darnoc]

Not a person, but a group of qualified persons. They would watch eachother, so that none of them gets more power than the other and thus they have no other choice than to work together. Or you can have a bunch of totally indoctrinated people who were only educated (I don't dare to say "created") to rule.