Questions Fuehrer Bush does not want to answer: [Archive]

shemp

6th September 2003, 06:23 AM

1. Where is Osama bin Laden? Why has he not been brought to justice?

2. Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

3. If Weapons of Mass Destruction are not found, are you going to admit that the war was a mistake? Will you immediately withdraw from Iraq? Will you apologize to the United Nations, to the families of those killed on both sides, and perhaps even to Saddam Hussein?

4. Do you really think the United Nations is going to help pay for the mess you have created?

5. Do you really think that the voters are going to agree to continue paying $1 billion a week for a war that has no good reason to continue, no clear goals, no timetable, and no plan for withdrawal?

6. You have admitted to relying on false information in your most recent State of the Union Address. Why have those who created and supplied this information not been removed from their positions and brought to justice?

7. Why is it true that the biggest budget deficits the United States has ever faced have come under Republican administrations, and the only surpluses since World War II came under a Democratic administration?

8. Unemployment rates are traditionally low during wartime. Why is the national unemployment rate above 6%?

9. Why are millions of Americans homeless while at the same time the CEOs of America's biggest corporations making approximately 900 times as much as the average worker?

10. What are the odds that, just like your daddy, you will go 4 and out? Don't steal the silverware on your way out the back door.

Mr Manifesto

6th September 2003, 06:42 AM

1) Iran. Then Syria. Then whichever country the US can plunder resources from.

2) Saddam has very cleverly hidden them. It may take years and years until we find them. Obviously, Saddam is so clever that even his ministers, advisors, military personnel, etc, that we have captured are afraid to tell the US where they are, in case Wile E Saddam gets in power again.
Until then, Iraq will have to pay the rent for America's occupation.

3) No, because the real reason for the war was to liberate those cute little Iraqis. The WMD's were just a rallying point, because we knew the American public wouldn't have the same scope and vision that we do.

4) Well, considering it's for the benefit of the entire world, I should certainly hope so!

5) Have I mentioned how evil Saddam is yet? Look at those Iraqi faces! Can you imagine them having to live in tyranny another day? Shame on you!

6) "False" is such a harsh word. I prefer 'differently truthful'.

7) Obviously, the Republicans have set up the long-long-term infrastructure for surpluses which the Democrats have reaped while they were in power. Then, while they were in power, they plundered that same infrastructure so that when the Republicans get back in power again, they all have to start from scratch. It's all very complicated, but you can trust me on this one.

8) Peaceniks have made us ban the draft. If it weren't for the peacemongers constantly undermining America's security and economy, we wouldn't have nearly the number of problems we have now. But do you think Congress will let me pass a Police State bill?

9) This one's easy. I'm going to give you a chance to take it back. Too late - the CEO's work much harder than homeless people who simply don't have the motivation to reach their potential in the land opportunity.

10) There's a terror threat imminent. Do you really trust those pansy Democrats to protect you from it? Look over there! It's a monkey! What a silly monkey! Chewbacca is from Kashyyyk, so what is he doing on Endor with Ewoks? It DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!

Ziggurat

6th September 2003, 11:17 AM

Let me start by saying calling Bush "Fuerer" labels you as a leftwing nutjob. That is an inflammatory label, there is lo legitimate comparison comparison between Bush and Hitler. And I'm saying this as someone who REALLY doesn't like Bush. I'll call him a liar, a cronyist, an idiot and more, but if you need to resort to calling him Hitler, then you've really already lost the argument.

Originally posted by shemp
1. Where is Osama bin Laden? Why has he not been brought to justice?

We'd all like to know. Are you suggesting that Bush is hiding him, or not trying to find him? Do you have a plan for how to find him? What, exactly, is your point with this question?

3. If Weapons of Mass Destruction are not found, are you going to admit that the war was a mistake? Will you immediately withdraw from Iraq? Will you apologize to the United Nations, to the families of those killed on both sides, and perhaps even to Saddam Hussein?

WHAT???? You even SUGGEST that Saddam should be appologized to, rather than brought before a war crimes court for the attrocities he committed? I've seen some pretty wingnut views on this whole Iraq situation, but this is takes the cake. You're not just appologizing FOR Saddam, you're saying WE should appologize to HIM. You're pathetic, absolutely pathetic. You should be embarassed you ever posted that.

6. You have admitted to relying on false information in your most recent State of the Union Address. Why have those who created and supplied this information not been removed from their positions and brought to justice?

You're distorting this completely, either because you don't know the facts or because you don't care if the facts get in the way. Bush used information that was not considered sufficiently reliable by the state department. Someone probably should be fired for that (but what the hell do you mean by "brought to justice"?). But the information has not been proven "false" - or did you forget that the SOU address refered to "seeking", not aquiring, uranium from Africa, not specifically Nigeria? There is plenty to criticize Bush about (including a number of the points you list about the economy), but at least be honest with your criticism. But maybe that's too much to ask for someone who wants us to appologize to Saddam for interfering with his right to brutally oppress his own country.

Edited for typos.

espritch

6th September 2003, 12:02 PM

6. You have admitted to relying on false information in your most recent State of the Union Address. Why have those who created and supplied this information not been removed from their positions and brought to justice?

I think that Bush sincerely believed Saddam was engaged in a program of developing weapons of mass destruction. If the Bush administration had knowingly been lying about this issue, it would have been easy enough for them to concoct “evidence” to support the assertions: a few vials of anthrax, a few canisters of nerve gas. The fact that no evidence of WMDs has come to light suggests that the administration actually believed that there was no need to create false evidence as they thought real evidence would be found. It would seem that the Bush administration was deliberately misled. The obvious question, and one that I have not seen addressed by the press or anyone else, is who was behind the false information and why?

Much was made of the fact that the documents referenced by Bush concerning attempts by Iraq to acquire uranium were a forgery. But no one seems interested in asking who forged them and how they ended up in the hands of American intelligence. What other bad intelligence about Iraq had the US government received and from whom? Obviously there were plenty of groups that would regarded the toppling of Saddam as a good thing. Iran might have seen this as a way to bring about the existence of another Shia theocracy as well as a way to get even with Saddam for his war against them. Various anti-Saddam groups in Iraq obviously stood to benefit. Israel would be likely to see the fall of Saddam as a desirable outcome and a way to get back at him for firing SCUDs at them during Dessert Storm. So why is it that no one seems to be interested in asking or answering this question?

Ziggurat

6th September 2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by espritch

Much was made of the fact that the documents referenced by Bush concerning attempts by Iraq to acquire uranium were a forgery.

Bush references a British report claiming Saddam sought uranium from Africa, not specifically Nigeria. Many people interpreted this claim as being based upon the forged Nigeria document, but that isn't correct.

If you want to look for lies from the administration, they're not that hard to find - like Rice's repeated claim that US intelligence concluded that the aluminum tubes Saddam tried to buy were for uranium centrifuge enrichment. But the Nigeria thing is WAY overblown.

EvilYeti

6th September 2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by shemp
1. Where is Osama bin Laden? Why has he not been brought to justice?

See my conspiracy theory thread.

bangdazap

6th September 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Bush references a British report claiming Saddam sought uranium from Africa, not specifically Nigeria. Many people interpreted this claim as being based upon the forged Nigeria document, but that isn't correct.

If you want to look for lies from the administration, they're not that hard to find - like Rice's repeated claim that US intelligence concluded that the aluminum tubes Saddam tried to buy were for uranium centrifuge enrichment. But the Nigeria thing is WAY overblown.
Nothing has been made by the fact that Iraq already had hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium in store - so why go through the trouble of smuggling a bit more into the country at great risk and cost?
Clumsy lies and scaremongering from a desperate government is all there is to it.

Cain

6th September 2003, 01:31 PM

9. Why are millions of Americans homeless while at the same time the CEOs of America's biggest corporations making approximately 900 times as much as the average worker?

I think it's closer to five-hundred. So ha! take that, pinko!

Mike B.

6th September 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
1) Iran. Then Syria. Then whichever country the US can plunder resources from.

Really?
I have to wonder though, there are so many easier targets to plunder. Why not Brazil or Canada?
Not very strong militarily and plenty of natural resources.

Or maybe as usual, your leftist conspiracy driven mind makes you say silly things.

Shane Costello

6th September 2003, 05:12 PM

9. Why are millions of Americans homeless while at the same time the CEOs of America's biggest corporations making approximately 900 times as much as the average worker?

According to this source (www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/fact11.htm) there are "only" 600,000 homeless people in America, and about a third of them are afflicted by mental illness.

Trollbane

6th September 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by shemp
9. Why are millions of Americans homeless while at the same time the CEOs of America's biggest corporations making approximately 900 times as much as the average worker?

This question is just stupid.. It really should be divided into two separate questions to avoid the equivication of a average worker and a homeless (unless the average worker really is homeless)

EvilYeti

6th September 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Trollbane

This question is just stupid.. It really should be divided into two separate questions to avoid the equivication of a average worker and a homeless (unless the average worker really is homeless)

True, wealth is too complex to reduce to a simple zero-sum game. The rich executive is not necessarily stealing money from the homeless wino.

The rich guy is also doing much more for society (hopefully) than a bum

The rich guy vs. middle-class guy is a better argument, as they often have to pick up the slack when the rich get mega tax cuts.

RandFan

6th September 2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by shemp
3. If Weapons of Mass Destruction are not found, are you going to admit that the war was a mistake? Will you immediately withdraw from Iraq? Will you apologize to the United Nations, to the families of those killed on both sides, and perhaps even to Saddam Hussein? ????? Saddam's murdering, torturing, imprisioning, mutalating and non cooperation have stopped.

Why would Bush appologize?

10. What are the odds that, just like your daddy, you will go 4 and out? Pretty good IMO. A president has to accept the bad and the good. I don't honestly know how much a president can effect the economy. The cycle was on the up-swing a year before Clinton took office and on the down a year before Clinton left office. The economy enjoyed an extra long up cycle do to the dot com BS and some creative accounting on the part of corporations. Still Clinton gets the credit (as he should) and Bush will suffer the consequences. It might be too late for him to get credit. His father didn't get any credit for the economy turning around since it wasn't really felt until he was about to leave office.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

6th September 2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Let me start by saying calling Bush "Fuerer" labels you as a leftwing nutjob. That is an inflammatory label, there is lo legitimate comparison comparison between Bush and Hitler. And I'm saying this as someone who REALLY doesn't like Bush. I'll call him a liar, a cronyist, an idiot and more, but if you need to resort to calling him Hitler, then you've really already lost the argument.

.

Fuehrer, or Fuhrer:

from Middle High German vüerer, from vüeren to lead, bear, from Old High German fuoren to lead.

Hitler was not the 1st to lead Germany, nor was he the last. Why do you attribute "Fuehrer" to Hitler? Hitler had many titles. Many leaders of Germany have had various titles including "Fuehrer". How is Fuehrer an inflammatory label? Is Bush not a leader? Hitler was a tyrant, but does the title "Fuehrer" imply tyrant when used in other contexts aside from when applied to Der Fuehrer ?

Goebbels (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/angrif09.htm) explains the nature of leadership, and ends with a brief mention of Hitler.

Ziggurat

6th September 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

Why do you attribute "Fuehrer" to Hitler? Hitler had many titles.

Because in the US, the only time anyone uses the term is in reference (direct or indirect) to Hitler. That is always what comes to mind for Americans, although yes I did know the literal german meaning was generic. Are you pretending that Shemp didn't mean to compare Bush to Hitler? I don't think so. I think that's EXACTLY what he meant. I think he meant to be inflamatory, and suggesting Bush is the equivalent of Hitler isn't surprising from someone who thinks that we should appologize to Saddam.

RandFan

6th September 2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I think he meant to be inflamatory, and suggesting Bush is the equivalent of Hitler isn't surprising from someone who thinks that we should appologize to Saddam. Hitler was not the first to use the swastika either. It is a native American design.

Native American Designs (http://www.collectorsguide.com/fa/fa040.shtml)

If shemp had added a swastika to the mix I suppose that Pigmy would not have a problem with that either.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

6th September 2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Hitler was not the first to use the swastika either. It is a native American design.

Native American Designs (http://www.collectorsguide.com/fa/fa040.shtml)

If shemp had added a swastika to the mix I suppose that Pigmy would not have a problem with that either.

Please continue to inform me what else you suppose I would not have a problem with.

Why should I have a problem with the term "Fuehrer" and swastika symbols? There are many vocal individuals and groups informing many people what terms and symbols are inappropriate and offensive to use and informing people what they should have a problem with. You are in good company Ziggurat and RandFan.

Why not ask Shemp why he used the label rather than assume why he used it? If he makes claims ask him for evidence to back up his claims.

Ziggurat

6th September 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Why should I have a problem with the term "Fuehrer" and swastika symbols? There are many vocal individuals and groups informing many people what terms and symbols are inappropriate and offensive to use and informing people what they should have a problem with. You are in good company Ziggurat and RandFan.

The Nazi use of the swastika was generally in red, on a white circle with a black background. The Nazi swastika was also tilted at a 45 degree angle. Were someone to display a swastika in this fashion, I would probably be offended. There are certainly non-offending uses of the symbol, I never claimed otherwise. I also don't really have a fundamental problem with anyone ever using the term "fuehrer". But I have a specific problem with Shemp's use of it, because of what I think he obviously meant. If he ONLY meant it in the literal german meaning of leader, why did he capitalize it? He was using it like a formal title (and Hitler is the only person that Americans associate with that word as a title), not a simple adjective or noun.

Why not ask Shemp why he used the label rather than assume why he used it? If he makes claims ask him for evidence to back up his claims.

I have little faith that Shemp would respond, and what you address isn't even the most offensive part of his post, rather I think it just shows that Shemp is taking a wingnut view of the world. You're trying to argue that it's impossible to PROVE what he meant by "Fuerher", and you're right, but that's also largely irrelevant. If he really didn't mean that, he needs to clarify that himself, because the way I interpreted it is the way most people are going to interpret it. But what I REALLY think he needs to explain is how he can excuse his call for America to appologize to Saddam.

EvilYeti

6th September 2003, 08:21 PM

In order for Bush to be like Hitler he would have to orchestrate a terror attack on a domestic target, blame a scapegoat and use the ensuing furor to ursurp political control from his political enemies.

Freedoms would be curtailed in the name of security, pacifists would be demonized for their lack of patriotism and countries invaded but a massive war machine to fufill his twisted ideas of a divine right.

Wait a second... :eek:

Ziggurat

6th September 2003, 09:13 PM

EvilYeti

6th September 2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

See, I can't even tell if you're kidding about this, that's how bad some of the rhetoric and conspiracy theories have become. And your other thread suggesting that we know where Osama is but aren't doing anything suggests maybe you're not. If you are kidding, you can ignore the rest of this.

Whenever you see :eek: don't take the post too seriously!

That said, I was struct when I watched the "Rise of Evil" miniseries about Hilter and how some of the Nazi rhetoric was similar to our administration. I think that might have been introduced by the Leftist producers, however :).

Ziggurat

7th September 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Whenever you see :eek: don't take the post too seriously!

Glad to hear it. :cool:

EvilYeti

7th September 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Glad to hear it. :cool:

Don't be, I haven't told you my theory about Alan Greenspan really being a Giant Alien Ant.

I'm dead serious about that.

And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

Ziggurat

7th September 2003, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Don't be, I haven't told you my theory about Alan Greenspan really being a Giant Alien Ant.

I thought everyone knew that. I mean, just look at the guy - does he LOOK human? :confused:

shemp

7th September 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
In order for Bush to be like Hitler he would have to orchestrate a terror attack on a domestic target, blame a scapegoat and use the ensuing furor to ursurp political control from his political enemies.

Freedoms would be curtailed in the name of security, pacifists would be demonized for their lack of patriotism and countries invaded but a massive war machine to fufill his twisted ideas of a divine right.

Wait a second... :eek:

Everything after "In order for Bush to be like Hitler he would have to orchestrate a terror attack on a domestic target," is correct. Bush couldn't pull off that kind of conspiracy, but he is surrounded by the kind of people who know how to take advantage of it.

As for "Fuehrer," I meant exactly what it sounds like. Bush wants to bring about a New World Order, ruled by right-wing religious nutjobs. This man believes in the literality of the Bible. He believes that we are on the edge of Armageddon. He wants to change the world in ways similar to what Hitler wanted.

As for apologizing to Saddam Hussein, why shouldn't he apologize for the illegal invasion of another country? An illegal invasion is an illegal invasion, regardless of who is in charge. It won't surprise me if the U.S. is forced to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, and Saddam or one of his stooges returns to power.

The time to eliminate Hussein was after his invasion of Kuwait. When Daddy Bush pulled out and left him in power, it said, in effect, that the price has been paid in full. This second invasion wasn't about Kuwait, it was ostensibly about WMDs, and really about 9/11. There is no proof that Hussein was connected to either. Therefore, the invasion had a political purpose, and should be considered illegal, immoral and unjustifiable.

If Bush is reelected, the American people will be legitimizing evil. It will be another step on the road to the end of the Republic and the beginning of Empire.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

7th September 2003, 08:01 AM

U.S. Involvment in Iraq (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/06/bush030906) Sunday evening.

Bush will again link the Iraq war with the battle against terror, a White House spokesman said, even though there has been no definitive proof that ties Iraq in with international terrorism.

Will Bush give post hoc evidence as Bremer did (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26349&highlight=posthoc) for justifying the war?

Will Bush again appeal to God in this speach to support Bush's righteous invasion and occupation?

Apparantly Bush will inform the American public that he will be asking congress for an additional 60 to 80 Billion dollars for war/occupation/rebuilding efforts. Will he be able to sell Americans on this, as thousands of more Americans lost jobs over the summmer?

Ziggurat

7th September 2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by shemp

As for "Fuehrer," I meant exactly what it sounds like.

That's what I thought. You're morally bankrupt. And PigmyPlaid wasted all that effort trying to rationalize your pathetic rhetoric.

As for apologizing to Saddam Hussein, why shouldn't he apologize for the illegal invasion of another country? An illegal invasion is an illegal invasion, regardless of who is in charge.

Yup, just as I thought. You don't really care about human right. You don't really care about stopping the kind of oppression that serves as the real breeding ground for terrorism. You just want to uphold the sovereignty of despots. What laws, exactly, did our invasion break anyways? Are you talking about the UN? Probably. You place too much faith in that failed, corrupt, inbred, incompetent, and impotent organization. The UN security council doesn't care about human rights. Hell, even the UN human rights commission doesn't really care about human rights (Ghadafi ring a bell?). And neither, apparently, do you, if you think a dictator's club should be determining what the US can and cannot "legally" do. You think states have inherent rights that must be upheld and people do not, when it's really the reverse.

It won't surprise me if the U.S. is forced to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, and Saddam or one of his stooges returns to power.

That's what you're hoping for, isn't it? You're pathetic. The terrorists know that if we establish a democracy in Iraq, they will have suffered a terrible blow. They know what's at stake, and that's why they're trying as hard as they can to destabilize the country. But you, you just want us to pull out, appease them and hope they'll go away.

If Bush is reelected, the American people will be legitimizing evil. It will be another step on the road to the end of the Republic and the beginning of Empire.

You're the one who wants Saddam back in power. You're the one who evidently considers Bush worse than Saddam. You're the one who places the rights of dictators above basic human rights. YOU are the one who is legitimizing evil.

I can see where the REAL threats to world peace are coming from, and it's not from Bush. It's coming from rogue dictatorships and terrorists, and from people like you who just want us to appease them.

RandFan

7th September 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Please continue to inform me what else you suppose I would not have a problem with. Ok.

Why should I have a problem with the term "Fuehrer" and swastika symbols? Thank you for proving my point.

There are many vocal individuals and groups informing many people what terms and symbols are inappropriate and offensive to use and informing people what they should have a problem with. You are in good company Ziggurat and RandFan. I believe in keeping an open mind but there is a limit. Shemp's usage of the word and his intent was clear and unambiguous. I suppose we could pretend that we were not certain and ask shemp. But many words have more than one usage and if we can't rely on context and typical meaning to deduce ones intent then there is a breakdown in communication.

Hey, shemp could easily say that he likes the sing-song romanticism of the German language and that is why he chose the word.. And I suppose that the bald guys with swastikas tattooed on their heads just like native American designs.

You know, you don't have to have so open of a mind that your brains fall out.

Why not ask Shemp why he used the label rather than assume why he used it? Why not ask for clarification on almost ALL words? Most words have multiple usages. I choose to consider context when interpreting meaning. This by no means takes away the right of Shemp to clarify.

RandFan

7th September 2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by shemp
As for "Fuehrer," I meant exactly what it sounds like. What was that you were saying pigmy?

[Bush wants to bring about a New World Order, ruled by right-wing religious nutjobs. This man believes in the literality of the Bible. He believes that we are on the edge of Armageddon. He wants to change the world in ways similar to what Hitler wanted. Proof please?

I will expect rhetoric and evidence of the quality of any conspiracy theory web site.

Please don't prove me wrong and ignore my request. I'm dying to see the conspiratorial "connecting of the dots". When you are finished I can then connect the dots to prove that the Jews rule the world, that JFK was assassinated on orders from Johnson and that we never went to the moon.

This will be fun!

As for apologizing to Saddam Hussein, why shouldn't he apologize for the illegal invasion of another country? An illegal invasion is an illegal invasion, regardless of who is in charge. "illegal invasion?" Proof please?

The time to eliminate Hussein was after his invasion of Kuwait. "Duh"! Thank you Mr. Obvious.

When Daddy Bush pulled out and left him in power, it said, in effect, that the price has been paid in full. Demonstrably FALSE! Saddam made agreements he never kept.

This second invasion wasn't about Kuwait, it was ostensibly about WMDs, and really about 9/11. There is no proof that Hussein was connected to either. Therefore, the invasion had a political purpose, and should be considered illegal, immoral and unjustifiable. That is you opinion. Opinions are like as*holes. Everyone has them and they are all full of sh*t.

Thanks for sharing anyway.

If Bush is reelected, the American people will be legitimizing evil. It will be another step on the road to the end of the Republic and the beginning of Empire. Riiiiiight. It is all part of the Jewish-Protestant tri-lateral commission world order.

Gimme a break.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

7th September 2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
Proof please?

clip

"illegal invasion?" Proof please?

clip

That is you opinion.

There you go. Now you are demonstrating that you have the skill to challenge people's claims and opinions and getting people to explain themselves.:th:

Well done RandFan.

coalesce

7th September 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Don't be, I haven't told you my theory about Alan Greenspan really being a Giant Alien Ant.

I'm dead serious about that.

And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

Just keep in mind that you may possibly have been a little hasty in your earlier post and would like to...reaffirm your allegiance to this country and its human president. May not be perfect, but it's still the best government we have. For now.

Michael

RandFan

7th September 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by shemp
Bush wants to bring about a New World Order, ruled by right-wing religious nutjobs. This man believes in the literality of the Bible. He believes that we are on the edge of Armageddon. He wants to change the world in ways similar to what Hitler wanted. You know, there is so much wrong with this that I had to comment further. Forgetting godwins law (http://dict.die.net/godwins%20law/), there are many reasons why Bush and the administration are not like Hitler or the Nazis.

1.) Hitler consolidated power and was able to effectively negate the rule of law.

2.) There is no mechanism for Bush to consolidate power the way Hitler did.

3.) The separation of powers enacted by the founders of the United States prevents Bush from consolidating power.

4.) Bush has been unable to instill any judge that he wants to the federal court.

5.) Federal judges have ruled in favor of separation of church and state.

6.) The supreme court has ruled in favor of separation of church and state.

7.) Bush has term limits.

8.) It is very likely based on history that Democrats will again in the near future control congress and or the presidency.

9.) Nothing has fundamental changed in our government that would suggest that Republicans or Conservatives will be able to effectively control the government against the will of the people.

10.) The history of America has shown that the courts are willing and able to protect the civil rights of those in the minority.

11.) The Democratic party is a very potent political force that serves as a counter weight to conservative ideology and vice versa.

Shemp's post is blatant Demagoguery. It lacks any evidence or proof to support the proposition that conservatives are planning to fundamental change American government the way Hitler did or that they can change American government.

I happily concede that Republicans and Conservatives are seeking to change policy and the direction of the United States. So? The Democrats would also like to change the policy and the direction of the United States.

BFD! Welcome to American politics. It has always been that way it always will be that way. It is PRECISELY as the founding fathers planned it.

If any of you disagree with Bush and or the Conservatives that he associates with then please exercise your right as a citizen (assuming you are a US citizen) to vote him out of office.

And please CONTINUE the dialog and the debate. Non US citizens you are WELCOME to the debate. Our policies effect you and we welcome dialog and debate from all over the world. We reserve the right to make the final decisions though. Sorry.

Let me just assure you that the sky is not falling. George Bush can't nullify the Constitution. Freedom is alive and well in the US of A.

Chupacabras

8th September 2003, 12:03 AM

FWIW, a link to a page that purports to "provide a high level strategic view of the cause of the war, the reason that the United States became involved in it, the fundamental goals the US has to achieve to win it, and the strategies the US is following...". USS Clueless (http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml)

I debated this document briefly with several people outside this forum, all people from outside of the USA, and many of them agreed it was written by a total dumb. However, some of the arguments seem plausible to this people (while some other are downright laughable). The point is that the USA made a great damage to its own international reputation by making this war after going trough all that happened, mainly because of the (perceived) real intenitions of war.

If you'd think it would help to discuss the merits (or truthfulness, for that matter) of the arguments... (even in a new thread). I must warn that some people have trouble getting past the first pharagraph.

Earthborn

8th September 2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by RandFan
We reserve the right to make the final decisions though. Sorry.Sometimes 'sorry' is just not good enough.
What gives the US the right to make the final decisions in things that affect other countries more than it does the US?
What gives the US the right to make a law that legalizes a possible invasion of one of their most loyal allies, The Netherlands?
What gives the US the right to demand Belgium to revoke a law, and even a month after the Belgian government decided it would not use it against the US, to lie to the American public that the law was still a threat to the US?
What gives the US the right to demand that Germany must violate its own constitution, or else be considered to be 'appeasing Saddam' ?
What gives the US the right to bully other nations into not complying to an international legal system such as the ICC, and in other ways destroying the system of international law the US itself created after WW2?

American arrogance never was small, but don't expect us to just accept that you will be unilaterally ruling the world, without any sense of diplomacy for either enemies or allies. You cannot expect that the rest of the world will allow you to make the final decisions. Sorry. :mad:

DrChinese

8th September 2003, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Sometimes 'sorry' is just not good enough.
What gives the US the right to make the final decisions in things that affect other countries more than it does the US?
What gives the US the right to make a law that legalizes a possible invasion of one of their most loyal allies, The Netherlands?
What gives the US the right to demand Belgium to revoke a law, and even a month after the Belgian government decided it would not use it against the US, to lie to the American public that the law was still a threat to the US?
What gives the US the right to demand that Germany must violate its own constitution, or else be considered to be 'appeasing Saddam' ?
What gives the US the right to bully other nations into not complying to an international legal system such as the ICC, and in other ways destroying the system of international law the US itself created after WW2?

American arrogance never was small, but don't expect us to just accept that you will be unilaterally ruling the world, without any sense of diplomacy for either enemies or allies. You cannot expect that the rest of the world will allow you to make the final decisions. Sorry. :mad:

Earthborn, it's a very slippery slope. Once we get started, it can lead almost anywhere... ergo the current pathetic situation you describe.

Most people have forgotton that Saddam is not the first dictator that a Bush has invaded a sovereign nation to capture. In Panama, George Sr. went after that "brutal" Noriega whose "crime" - if you can call it that - was to launder $$$ for drug dealers. He never set foot in the US but was indicted in Florida anyway. Please note that to see how ridiculous that scenario is - the Panamanian ambassador would have diplomatic immunity if he committed the same crime IN the US. Sovereignty is the concept that leads to global peace, but most people here can neither spell it or explain it.

The point is, they tried to call Noriega a terrorist at the time! Bush went in and grabbed him in 1989, there was little popular debate of the issue because most people here are sheep who will go along with almost anything. (You probably guessed as much.) My guess is that most people in the US could be convinced to invade France tomorrow given the current rhetoric level.

Should the rest of the world be afraid of the US, or should the US be afraid of the rest of the world? If a Bush has his way, there will be more of BOTH of these. Sorry.

Crossbow

8th September 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by bangdazap

Nothing has been made by the fact that Iraq already had hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium in store - so why go through the trouble of smuggling a bit more into the country at great risk and cost?
Clumsy lies and scaremongering from a desperate government is all there is to it.

Do you have sources regarding the claim you made about Iraq having "hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium in store"?

If so, please post it for I would like to see such data.

Thanks in advance!

RandFan

8th September 2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Sometimes 'sorry' is just not good enough. I was talking about who would be president.

What gives the US the right to make the final decisions in things that affect other countries more than it does the US? Nothing gives us any "right".

What gives the US the right to make a law that legalizes a possible invasion of one of their most loyal allies, The Netherlands? I don't know what you are talking about. Could you explain.

What gives the US the right to demand Belgium to revoke a law, and even a month after the Belgian government decided it would not use it against the US, to lie to the American public that the law was still a threat to the US? Please forgive my ignorance. Could you explain? Also please provide evidence?

What gives the US the right to demand that Germany must violate its own constitution, or else be considered to be 'appeasing Saddam' ? Again, I don't know what you are talking about. Why do you assume that I do. In the future could you please support your claims with links or at least offer a little more detail.

What gives the US the right to bully other nations into not complying to an international legal system such as the ICC, and in other ways destroying the system of international law the US itself created after WW2? How did we do this?

American arrogance never was small, but don't expect us to just accept that you will be unilaterally ruling the world... Blatant straw man. I certainly do not hold any such belief. My point was simply that we are a soverign nation and that we are entitled to vote for our own representatives. These representatives will make decisions that will affect the rest of the world. The same is true with ALL nations. The leaders of every nation make choices that can effect the rest of the world. It is true that ours can potentiall make a greater impact but what aer we supposed to do.

Please tell me honestly? I said I welcomed you into the debate. My point wasn't meant to be arrogant. It was merley stating a fact. And please note I welcomed the American Citizens to vote Bush out of office.

And while you are out dolling out accusations of arrogance please hand out a little to all of the countries that expect us to make policy the way THEY want us to regardless of how it will effect us.

...without any sense of diplomacy for either enemies or allies. Rhetorical! Odd how objectivity goes out the window when it comes to ideology.

Politics makes usually critical people into woo-woos.

Why not avoid fallacious argument and stick with facts and logic. I guess when a person is angry logic and facts don't matter.

You cannot expect that the rest of the world will allow you to make the final decisions. Sorry. What final decision? I was talking about who would be president. Are you seriously arguing that the rest of the world will not allow us to choose our own president?

And how are you NOT arrogant? The world is not a monolith alligned against America. The policies of the United States are not such that we are rejected by all. The French, Germans and Russians have interests and motivations that are demonstrably self serving.

Why should they dictate our policy?

Most of the world is under dictatorial rule, why should the rest of the world dictate to America?

Finally, assuming that I was arguing that America wanted to rule the world, I'M NOT, what is it you have in mind whey you say you won't "allow" us to make the final decisions?

Mr Manifesto

8th September 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

Do you have sources regarding the claim you made about Iraq having "hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium in store"?

If so, please post it for I would like to see such data.

Thanks in advance!

While you're at it, you'd better let the Bush admistration know, too. I'm sure they'll pay handsomely for such info. Don't accept any bid less than $87 billion.

shuize

8th September 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
What gives the US the right to make a law that legalizes a possible invasion of one of their most loyal allies, The Netherlands?

WTF? Since when is the US planning an invasion of the Netherlands? The Dutch must be suffering from delusions of grandeur if they think the US gives a rat's ass about their insignificant little country. News to the Dutch still living in the golden age: The tulip craze is over and England pushed you off the world stage hundreds of years ago.

The Dutch can keep the Netherlands. No, Really. It wouldn't even make for an interesting 15 minutes. What with the Dutch propensity to surrender even faster than the French.

BTW, the war crimes law claiming international jurisdiction for any and all cases without any connection to Belgium whatsoever was very stupid, as any first year law student could tell you, and the Belgians were wise to revise it.

Ziggurat

8th September 2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

While you're at it, you'd better let the Bush admistration know, too. I'm sure they'll pay handsomely for such info. Don't accept any bid less than $87 billion.

Man, you just don't know what claims to question and what's well-known. No surprise. Everyone knows that Iraq had hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium, this was common knowlege. But here's a little link for you about Iraq's obtaining hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium, obtained from about a minute of google searching (since you can't ever seem to find out such information on your own):

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html

Note that when the IAEA says that they "took custody" of all this stuff, that doesn't mean that they actually removed it from Iraq.

shemp

8th September 2003, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by shuize

WTF? Since when is the US planning an invasion of the Netherlands? The Dutch must be suffering from delusions of grandeur if they think the US gives a rat's ass about their insignificant little country. News to the Dutch still living in the golden age: The tulip craze is over and England pushed you off the world stage hundreds of years ago.

The Dutch can keep the Netherlands. No, Really. It wouldn't even make for an interesting 15 minutes. What with the Dutch propensity to surrender even faster than the French.

BTW, the war crimes law claiming international jurisdiction for any and all cases without any connection to Belgium whatsoever was very stupid, as any first year law student could tell you, and the Belgians were wise to revise it.

I bet Hitler's boys said similar things 65 years ago. Just substitute "Germany" for "US."

Mr Manifesto

8th September 2003, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Man, you just don't know what claims to question and what's well-known. No surprise. Everyone knows that Iraq had hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium, this was common knowlege. But here's a little link for you about Iraq's obtaining hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium, obtained from about a minute of google searching (since you can't ever seem to find out such information on your own):

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html

Note that when the IAEA says that they "took custody" of all this stuff, that doesn't mean that they actually removed it from Iraq.

As of 16 December 1998, the following assessment could be made of Iraq's clandestine programme:

There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq's explanation of its progress towards the finalisation of a workable design for its nuclear weapons was considered to be consistent with the resources and time scale indicated by the available programme documentation.

Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of HEU through the EMIS process, the production and pilot cascading of single-cylinder sub-critical gas centrifuge machines, and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon

There were no indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its indigenous processes.

There were no indications that Iraq otherwise clandestinely acquired weapons-usable material

All the safeguarded research reactor fuel was verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA and removed from Iraq.

There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance

Procurement and production of uranium compounds
Removed all known weapon usable materials

All known indigenous facilities capable of producing uranium compounds useful to a nuclear programme were destroyed during the Gulf War; IAEA inspected and completed the destruction of facilities; IAEA monitored the sites as part of their OMV activities.

Took custody of all known imported compounds and indigenously produced uranium compounds

Industrial-scale facilities for the production of uranium compounds suitable for fuel fabrication or isotopic enrichment
All known indigenous facilities capable of producing uranium compounds useful for fuel fabrication and for isotopic enrichment were destroyed during the Gulf War; IAEA inspected and completed the destruction of facilities; IAEA monitored the sites as part of their OMV activities.
R&D of indigenous uranium enrichment technologies
Destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless all known single-use equipment used in enrichment R&D

Destroyed all known facilities and equipment for the enrichment of uranium

Subjected to ongoing monitoring and verification all facilities and known dual-use equipment capable of being used in enrichment R&D

Design and feasibility studies for an indigenous plutonium production reactor Inspections revealed no indication that Iraq's plan for an indigenous plutonium production reactor proceeded beyond feasibility study.
R&D of irradiated fuel reprocessing technology The relevant facilities at Tuwaitha used for irradiated fuel reprocessing R&D were destroyed during the Gulf War

R&D of weaponisation capabilities for implosion-based nuclear weapons
Destroyed the principal buildings of Al Atheer nuclear weapons development and production plant.

Destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless all known purpose-specific equipment

A "crash programme" aimed at diverting safeguarded research reactor fuel and recovering the HEU for use in a nuclear weapon
The chemical processing plant was destroyed during the Gulf War; IAEA monitored sites with relevant capabilities as part of their OMV activities.

Verified, accounted for, and recovered the entire inventory of research reactor fuel

Arranged for removal of all HEU fuel from Iraq

Yup. Your link sure convinced me.

RandFan

8th September 2003, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by DrChinese
Please note that to see how ridiculous that scenario is - the Panamanian ambassador would have diplomatic immunity if he committed the same crime IN the US. Sovereignty is the concept that leads to global peace, but most people here can neither spell it or explain it. Non sequitur, treaties provide for diplomatic immunity, NOT sovereignty.

The point is, they tried to call Noriega a terrorist at the time! Bush went in and grabbed him in 1989, there was little popular debate of the issue because most people here are sheep who will go along with almost anything.... Fallacious, I would ask you to provide evidence but we both know that there isn't any. You are making an argument based on an ad hominem premise.

(You probably guessed as much.) My guess is that most people in the US could be convinced to invade France tomorrow given the current rhetoric level. So you attack rhetoric with more rhetoric. Nice.

You know, politics is not an exact science but that is no reason to abandon logic, objectivity and critical thinking.

Crossbow

8th September 2003, 08:01 AM

Ziggurat

8th September 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Yup. Your link sure convinced me.

Of course the IAEA is going to say they had everything under control. They want to seem relevant, they want to keep their jobs, whoever ran this operation wants a promotion, etc. So of course they're going to act like they accomplished all this great stuff. But you need to keep several things in mind (or is that too hard?):

The IAEA did not know about this nuclear weapons program before the first gulf war. Saddam successfully hid it from the IAEA, who were saying that he had no weapons program. No mention of that little screwup on the IAEA page, is there? It was only after the war that they discovered it. In other words, don't count on them to find hidden programs in the future.

Second, notice the disclaimer "all known"? In other words, they can't know for sure that they actually got everything. The IAEA is a VERY poor source of information about what Saddam was trying to keep hidden. And it doesn't matter what they destroyed in the past if Saddam manages to rebuild it in the future. I posted them because at least you'd believe the IAEA about what was found.

My original point was that you can't even be bothered to find out the basic facts, since you apparently didn't even believe that Iraq HAD hundreds of tons of enriched uranium and couldn't even try to find out this information on your own.

Frank Newgent

8th September 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
The Nazi swastika was also tilted at a 45 degree angle. Were someone to display a swastika in this fashion, I would probably be offended.

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~fortean3/images/food/etc/easter1.jpg

Mmmm-mm, fresh Nazis.

Ziggurat

8th September 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

Thanks so much for the data for it essentially confirmed my thoughts (that Iraq did not have tons of nuclear materials). However, I have to ask, did you actually read the report you proffed?

Oh the irony. Yes I read it, apparently more carefully than you did. I also read what you originally responded to. Let me quote:

Originally posted by bangdazap

"Nothing has been made by the fact that Iraq already had hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium in store"

Originally posted by Crossbow:

"Do you have sources regarding the claim you made about Iraq having "hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium in store"?"

I posted the link
http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html
which says that Iraq:
"Produced 109 tonnes of uranium in 168 tonnes of yellowcake at Al Qaim uranium recovery plant, which was constructed between 1982-84
Produced 420 drums containing 99,457 kg uranium dioxide at Al Jesira uranium conversion facility"

Hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium. That's the claim that was made, that's what you questioned, and that's what I showed.

"Removed all known weapon usable materials.",

Unenriched uranium is not weapon usable until it is enriched. Duh. They did not remove the unenriched uranium from Iraq.

Where are the sources that say Iraq had tons of nuclear material?

Right under your nose.

Ziggurat

8th September 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Mmmm-mm, fresh Nazis.

That's pretty funny :D

But those don't really look like swastikas to me. They're all curved, they're not all even going in the same direction, and they remind me more of that blade thingy in that stupid movie Krull (though I think that thing had five "arms"). :wink:

shemp

8th September 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

That's pretty funny :D

But those don't really look like swastikas to me. They're all curved, they're not all even going in the same direction, and they remind me more of that blade thingy in that stupid movie Krull (though I think that thing had five "arms"). :wink:

You would know, I'm sure you have plenty of real ones around.

Earthborn

8th September 2003, 09:17 AM

Randfan:I don't know what you are talking about. Could you explain.Shuize:WTF? Since when is the US planning an invasion of the Netherlands?Not planning, only legalizing: The Invasion Act (http://www.hogerhand.nl//achtergrond/cont_invasiewet_e.html)

Randfan:Please forgive my ignorance. Could you explain? Also please provide evidence?You may have heard about the fact that Belgium has a law that allows them, in theory, to try war criminals and violators of human rights where ever they are.

We already had discussions about it in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21493&highlight=Belgium). The US has been threatening Belgium with sanctions if it would not revoke this law, according to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89388,00.html), as the administrations claimed that it could be used against them because of the war in Iraq.
However: the Belgian prime-minister had already sent a complaint by some Iraqis back to the US to handle themselves a month earlier!: "Next week, I will call for a cabinet meeting and...undo this abuse." (http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/000121.php). The whole claim that American soldiers faced any lawsuit in Belgium was a blatant lie.Again, I don't know what you are talking about.According to the German constitution (http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html), Germany can only act militarily in a state of defense. They seem to have no problem helping with peace missions, but giving support, let alone military support to an unprovoked invasion would have caused a constitutional crisis.

Still, they were just vilified for not supporting the war in Iraq, called cowards, part of the 'axis of weasels', etcetera.Why do you assume that I do.You follow the news, don't you? Or do you only listen to government propaganda?How did we do this?Showing blatant disrespect for international treaties (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_unsigning.html),vetoeing peacekeeping missions (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_america-icc.html) if Americans are not allowed to stand above the law:The U.S. vetoed the extension of the U.N. mandate for the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia after the Security Council refused to grant immunity to peace-keepers in that area.And of course bullying countries that want to join the ICC to sign 'bilateral agreements (http://www.hogerhand.nl//achtergrond/cont_strafhof_e.html)' to grant immunity to people just because they happen to be American.Bilateral pressure

In the mean time, the Bush administration does all it can to undermine the International Criminal Court. The administration is using bilateral agreements to pressure as many countries as possible not to hand US citizens over to the court. This pressure has been particularly difficult to resist for poorer countries in Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. President Bush recently announced that he would place embargoes on arms sales to countries that extradite Americans to the jurisdiction of the Court. The US is attempting to use this manoeuvre to force countries into signing bilateral treaties.
The more countries that sign such a pact with the United States, the more countries will provide a safe haven for US soldiers. By these means, President Bush is trying to turn the entire world into a sanctuary for Americans.Randfan:My point was simply that we are a soverign nation and that we are entitled to vote for our own representatives.I'm sorry I misunderstood. Of course you are allowed to elect your own representatives. I don't think you made it very clear that you meant that, and it sounded very much like you were saying that the US should have a final say in everything. There are people who are arguing that. Glad to hear you are not one of them.It is true that ours can potentiall make a greater impact but what aer we supposed to do.Taking other countries seriously would be a nice start.Why should they dictate our policy?They shouldn't and they are not even trying to. But the present administration has been telling blatant lies about them, villifying them, bullying them. And not just because they didn't join the Coalition of the Willing. The Netherlands has been treated pretty much the same way.what is it you have in mind whey you say you won't "allow" us to make the final decisions?I don't know what can be done about it. The only thing I do know is that if the Bush administration continues on its present path, it will not have many allies left.

Of course we could always send a few platoons of these: Hogerhand (click on 'Hogerhand in Actie') (http://www.hogerhand.nl/home_e.html) :D

Ziggurat

8th September 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by shemp

You would know, I'm sure you have plenty of real ones around.

My you're getting desperate. First you need to resort to calling Bush a Nazi, then you start calling me a Nazi. Hey, I'm not the one saying we should appologize to a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of people and used chemical weapons on civilians, you are. But keep up the Nazi accusations, then people will see just how hollow your arguments really are.

Tony

8th September 2003, 09:29 AM

In the mean time, the Bush administration does all it can to undermine the International Criminal Court. The administration is using bilateral agreements to pressure as many countries as possible not to hand US citizens over to the court. This pressure has been particularly difficult to resist for poorer countries in Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. President Bush recently announced that he would place embargoes on arms sales to countries that extradite Americans to the jurisdiction of the Court. The US is attempting to use this manoeuvre to force countries into signing bilateral treaties.
The more countries that sign such a pact with the United States, the more countries will provide a safe haven for US soldiers. By these means, President Bush is trying to turn the entire world into a sanctuary for Americans.

You act like this is a bad thing. I dont want american troops or citizens tried in an internationl kangaroo court.

shemp

8th September 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

My you're getting desperate. First you need to resort to calling Bush a Nazi, then you start calling me a Nazi. Hey, I'm not the one saying we should appologize to a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of people and used chemical weapons on civilians, you are. But keep up the Nazi accusations, then people will see just how hollow your arguments really are.

Why, I never would do such a thing! I merely implied that someone of your level of intelligence would probably have some real examples of swastikas in his vast collection of political treasures. How paranoid!

shuize

8th September 2003, 09:44 AM

Earthborn,

Thanks for the link. I find it very amusing that the U.S. would even need to legalize an invasion of the Netherlands. If we wanted to, we should, as the U.S.Nike ad says, "Just Do It." Either way, I guess the Dutch might want to think twice about grabbing any senior U.S. miliary officers for ICC trial. I suppose this all started as a result of the Belgians (see also: WW I) and their silly claims to universal jurisdiction. Didn't some nutters try and bring charges against Bush Sr. and General Powell a few years back?

But, and please correct me if I'm wrong, did the U.S. ever sign on to the ICC treaty? Did not the U.S. maintain a reservation for U.S. servicemen and women? I thought we did.

I suppose I could look all this up, but it is very late in Japan (my present location ... the Japanese, by the way, also know better than to try and prosecute anyone above the rank of Major ... actually, I should say above the rank of Captain, as the last Major they tried to prosecute was aquitted) and I'm starting to see double as I compose this message.

Earthborn

8th September 2003, 10:00 AM

You act like this is a bad thing. I dont want american troops or citizens tried in an internationl kangaroo court.And the sad thing is that you have been so immersed in the propaganda of the Bush Administration that you actually believe it is.

The easiest way to avoid being tried by the ICC is by not commiting any crimes that could be tried by it. The second easiest is by trying the people responsible in your own country.Nevertheless, the following political realities ensure that attempts to misuse the Court for political purposes would fail, even in the unlikely event that they were tried. First, parties to the ICC are overwhelmingly countries upholding the rule of law, including our EU and NATO allies. No enemies of the US have joined, and it is extremely unlikely that they will in the future, because joining the Court would give it automatic jurisdiction over crimes committed on their territories or by their citizens. (snip) The Assembly’s decisions, depending on the topic, require at least a simple majority — many more than a state with a blatantly political agenda would be able to muster. Finally, the Statute’s regional representation requirements will ensure that the Court’s organs are removed from political pressures.

Reality: Ultimately, if a misuse of power occurs and remains unchecked, the ICC will lose its greatest asset: its reputation for impartiality. As a new international court the ICC will lack any independent means by which to coerce State compliance with its orders. Without an independent police force, the success of the Court will depend almost entirely on the willingness of its member states to cooperate. As a result, the Court’s only source of power will be the moral authority it accumulates as it matures into a respected institution. Only if states believe that the ICC is acting legitimately will they heed its decisions. The ICC could not long survive as a rogue court.Myths and Facts (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths_admin.html#Unchecked Power)

Tony

8th September 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
And the sad thing is that you have been so immersed in the propaganda of the Bush Administration that you actually believe it is.

The easiest way to avoid being tried by the ICC is by not commiting any crimes that could be tried by it. The second easiest is by trying the people responsible in your own country.Myths and Facts (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths_admin.html#Unchecked Power)

Nice source. :rolleyes:

shuize

8th September 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
The easiest way to avoid being tried by the ICC is by not commiting any crimes that could be tried by it. The second easiest is by trying the people responsible in your own country.

Like the Dutch "peacekeepers" who handed over a whole village to the Serbs to be massacred. What was the name of that town, Srebrenicia (sp)? Please be sure and let me know when those Dutch soldiers go on trial, if they haven't already.

Now I must really go to bed. 2:40 am Japan.

Earthborn

8th September 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by shuize
Thanks for the link. I find it very amusing that the U.S. would even need to legalize an invasion of the Netherlands. If we wanted to, we should, as the U.S.Nike ad says, "Just Do It."Yes, but that is exactly the worrying part. Why would they even make such a law, if it isn't just to piss off one of your allies, or if you're actually planning to invade it?

Well, maybe there doesn't have to be a rational reason, I guess.Either way, I guess the Dutch might want to think twice about grabbing any senior U.S. miliary officers for ICC trial.But such an officer would have to be arrested either in the country where he commits a warcrime, or in the US itself.I suppose this all started as a result of the Belgians (see also: WW I) and their silly claims to universal jurisdiction.Yes, and they realize the law was ill-conceived and they are going to change it. I think the universal jurisdiction is already made harmless.

But does the Bush administration send a nice thank you to Belgium? Noooo...Didn't some nutters try and bring charges against Bush Sr. and General Powell a few years back?Could be. Didn't work, did it? So it is pretty harmless, even though it is much easier to misuse politically than the ICC.But, and please correct me if I'm wrong, did the U.S. ever sign on to the ICC treaty?Yes, and Bush did the unprecented thing of 'unsigning (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_unsigning.html)' it. From now on, many nations will consider any signature of a US president on an international treaty to be worthless. If other countries start to 'unsign' treaties with the US, you have only Bush to thank for that.

Crossbow

9th September 2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Oh the irony. Yes I read it, apparently more carefully than you did. I also read what you originally responded to. Let me quote:

...

Originally posted by Crossbow:

"Do you have sources regarding the claim you made about Iraq having "hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium in store"?"

I posted the link
http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html
which says that Iraq:
"Produced 109 tonnes of uranium in 168 tonnes of yellowcake at Al Qaim uranium recovery plant, which was constructed between 1982-84
Produced 420 drums containing 99,457 kg uranium dioxide at Al Jesira uranium conversion facility"

Hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium. That's the claim that was made, that's what you questioned, and that's what I showed.

Unenriched uranium is not weapon usable until it is enriched. Duh. They did not remove the unenriched uranium from Iraq.

Right under your nose.

Look man, I do not why this is so hard for you to understand, but I will try again. If you will refer to Section III of the report you have so much faith in flat out says:

[the IAEA] Took custody of all known imported compounds and indigenously produced uranium compounds.

Therefore, Saddam did not have the tons of uranium (enriched, unprocessed, raw, etc.) at his disposal that he previously acquired. While the uranium may have been physically located in Iraq, it did not do him any good since he could not get access to it. By the way, even if he did, then it still would not do any good since there were no facilities in Iraq to process the said uranium (again, refer to Section III).

For example, just because someone can walk into bank will not make that person rich because there are people and hardware in place to prevent unauthorized withdraws. And this same sort of logic applied in Iraq regarding the uranium you are fretting so much about.

Is that clear now?

Ziggurat

9th September 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

Look man, I do not why this is so hard for you to understand, but I will try again. If you will refer to Section III of the report you have so much faith in flat out says:

[the IAEA] Took custody of all known imported compounds and indigenously produced uranium compounds.

And I don't understand why you think that "took custody" means they removed it from Iraq. They said "took custody" rather than "removed" (a term they DID use for other items) because they did NOT remove it from Iraq. It was still there, much of it stored at Al Tuwaitha.

By the way, even if he did, then it still would not do any good since there were no facilities in Iraq to process the said uranium (again, refer to Section III).

I'm well aware of the fact that such material needs to be enriched before it can be used. I never claimed otherwise. And it's not Saddam's current capabilities that worried me, it was possible future capabilities, something the IAEA was not capable of ensuring.

Crossbow

9th September 2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

And I don't understand why you think that "took custody" means they removed it from Iraq. They said "took custody" rather than "removed" (a term they DID use for other items) because they did NOT remove it from Iraq. It was still there, much of it stored at Al Tuwaitha.

...

I'm well aware of the fact that such material needs to be enriched before it can be used. I never claimed otherwise. And it's not Saddam's current capabilities that worried me, it was possible future capabilities, something the IAEA was not capable of ensuring.

Sorry about that, I still fail to see your point.

Since the raw material (in this case uranium) was no longer available to Iraq, and
Since all of the other nuclear material in Iraq was accounted for and removed and/or destroyed, and
Since all of the nuclear processing equipment in Iraq had been removed and/or destroyed, and
Since Iraq was unable to import any additional nuclear materials and/or equipment, then
I would think that a reasonable person should conclude that this raw material is no a big deal.

But alas you think otherwise, so I guess you are just way too smart for me!

Mr Manifesto

9th September 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

Sorry about that, I still fail to see your point.

Since the raw material (in this case uranium) was no longer available to Iraq, and
Since all of the other nuclear material in Iraq was accounted for and removed and/or destroyed, and
Since all of the nuclear processing equipment in Iraq had been removed and/or destroyed, and
Since Iraq was unable to import any additional nuclear materials and/or equipment, then
I would think that a reasonable person should conclude that this raw material is no a big deal.

But alas you think otherwise, so I guess you are just way too smart for me!

(Just highlighting where you went wrong)

Ziggurat

9th September 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

Sorry about that, I still fail to see your point.

My main point was that you were wrong when you challenged the assertion that Iraq had lots of unenriched uranium. Simple as that. All this other stuff is secondary to my main point.

Since the raw material (in this case uranium) was no longer available to Iraq,

It was available. Just kick the inspectors out again sometime down the road. Nobody really did much in 98 when they kicked them out, wait a few years and Saddam would probably have done the same thing again.

Since Iraq was unable to import any additional nuclear materials and/or equipment

They were doing plenty of smuggling through Syria, and many countries wanted to lift sanctions. I have no confidence that, long-term, Saddam would not have been able to aquire the means to resume an enrichment program. But again, that's secondary to my main point, which is that he had the unenriched uranium you seemed unwilling to believe he had.

I would think that a reasonable person should conclude that this raw material is no a big deal.

I never said the raw material was a big deal in itself. I said that he HAD the raw material, a claim that you challenged. Simple proposition: someone makes a claim (that Saddam had unenriched uranium), you challenge it, I backed up the claim.

Mr Manifesto

9th September 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat
[B
I never said the raw material was a big deal in itself. I said that he HAD the raw material, a claim that you challenged. Simple proposition: someone makes a claim (that Saddam had unenriched uranium), you challenge it, I backed up the claim. [/B]

Ah, but you implied that unenriched uranium is worth a damn, something you still haven't backed up.

Ziggurat

9th September 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Ah, but you implied that unenriched uranium is worth a damn, something you still haven't backed up.

:rolleyes: Nope, I never implied that. You read that into what I said because you don't understand my position. My main point was really that Crossbow didn't know what he was talking about. When it's a question of known facts, I've very much a stickler for getting them right.

Next time, ask me how important I think something like the unenriched uranium is. You can avoid the question of what you think I'm implying by getting a direct opinion.

Mr Manifesto

9th September 2003, 06:21 PM

I still don't see how you can say Saddam had unenriched uranium by translating 'took into custody' as 'we had it in a box somewhere for safe keeping, but we would have to give it back to Saddam if we ever left the country'. You still haven't proven that he had tonnes of unenriched uranium. Most of the arguments I've seen after doing a google search are along the lines of, was Saddam trying to get unenriched uranium from Niger or not?

peptoabysmal

9th September 2003, 09:02 PM

Ziggurat

9th September 2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I still don't see how you can say Saddam had unenriched uranium by translating 'took into custody'
as 'we had it in a box somewhere for safe keeping, but we would have to give it back to Saddam if we ever left the country'. You still haven't proven that he had tonnes of unenriched uranium.

It was still in Iraq. What part of that do you not understand? Or do you simply not believe me? If not, you're really barking up the wrong tree. By "took custody" they mean that they put it in drums, sealed the drums, and left them in Iraq (mostly at Al Tuwaitha). Inspectors would periodically check if seals had been broken. That's what they mean by "custody". Kick the inspectors out again, and Saddam could do whatever the hell he pleased with it. That's what I mean by he had hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium.

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/reports2.html

Report S/22837 gives a rough inventory of how much of what they had (page 10).

Report S/23112 on page 6 it states, "As a result of the third and fourth inspections, several hundred tons of nuclear material had been collected into storage locations at Tuwaitha."

You can dig around there more if you want details, but it was put in storage IN IRAQ, which to me means Saddam still had it. They would periodically monitor the stuff, but almost all of the unenriched uranium was left in Iraq. Hell, he could always mine more, so why bother removing it? (and yes, he could mine more - dig around in those reports and you'll even find out from where).

Most of the arguments I've seen after doing a google search are along the lines of, was Saddam trying to get unenriched uranium from Niger or not?

Yes, it is a little hard to track down that information that I'm talking about, but it's out there. You need to do more than just a google search to really get the details, you need to dig. It's understandable that you weren't able to find this easily, but if you DON'T know exactly what happened to all that unenriched uranium, then you shouldn't be so quick to attack someone who DOES know.

Crossbow

10th September 2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

:rolleyes: Nope, I never implied that. You read that into what I said because you don't understand my position. My main point was really that Crossbow didn't know what he was talking about. When it's a question of known facts, I've very much a stickler for getting them right.

Next time, ask me how important I think something like the unenriched uranium is. You can avoid the question of what you think I'm implying by getting a direct opinion.

Hang on there bucko you are the one who does not know what he is talking about! If you are such a "stickler for getting them [the facts] right" then you should actually pay attention to them.

For some reason you seem to think that I have been saying that Iraq does not have tons of unenriched uranium, however I never said such a thing. What I did was ask for the data that said Iraq had tons of unenriched uranium for I had never heard such a claim made before.

Apparently, you are skilled enough to find data about stores unenriched uranium that are locked up in Iraq via the Internet but for some reason you are unable to determine what I had to say when I first participated in this thread. I think that I may know why this is the case, but anyway here is what I had to say and I hope you will actually pay attention to it this time:

Originally posted by Crossbow

Do you have sources regarding the claim you made about Iraq having "hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium in store"?

If so, please post it for I would like to see such data.

Thanks in advance!

So do you still have a problem? It was just a one line question, I was not trying to bait anyone, or provoke arguments, or (unlike you) state that this person did not "know what they are talking about", or anything else like that. I was simply asking for further data on something that I have never heard before.

By the way, I still do not know what your problem is with the unenriched uranium is (even the Bush Administration did not make a fuss about it). So what if it is being stored in Iraq? It was under good control and the Iraqis never tried to take it, so I still fail to see your problem with it. If the uranium was that easy to get to, then Iraq would have not bothered to try to get more of it.

Ziggurat

10th September 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

For some reason you seem to think that I have been saying that Iraq does not have tons of unenriched uranium, however I never said such a thing.

[snip]

So do you still have a problem? It was just a one line question, I was not trying to bait anyone, or provoke arguments, or (unlike you) state that this person did not "know what they are talking about", or anything else like that. I was simply asking for further data on something that I have never heard before.

I didn't have a problem with your initial question. It was your initial response to me that I objected to, where you said:

"Thanks so much for the data for it essentially confirmed my thoughts (that Iraq did not have tons of nuclear materials). However, I have to ask, did you actually read the report you proffed?"

You did not read the report as closely as I had, misunderstood it and jumped to an incorrect conclusion, and rather than simply ask for clarification you accuse me of not understanding what it really said. That is the problem I had.

By the way, I still do not know what your problem is with the unenriched uranium is (even the Bush Administration did not make a fuss about it).

As I already said to Manifesto, I never said I had a problem with Iraq having unenriched uranium (though if you want to know WHY, maybe you should ask), I only said that they had it.

Crossbow

11th September 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

I didn't have a problem with your initial question. It was your initial response to me that I objected to, where you said:

"Thanks so much for the data for it essentially confirmed my thoughts (that Iraq did not have tons of nuclear materials). However, I have to ask, did you actually read the report you proffed?"

You did not read the report as closely as I had, misunderstood it and jumped to an incorrect conclusion, and rather than simply ask for clarification you accuse me of not understanding what it really said. That is the problem I had.

As I already said to Manifesto, I never said I had a problem with Iraq having unenriched uranium (though if you want to know WHY, maybe you should ask), I only said that they had it.

OK, so now I am the one jumping to conclusions when it was you who said:
that I did not read the report,
that I did not know what I was talking about (because I asked one question),
and when you stated that at some point in the future Saddam would have obtained the unenriched uranium you have been so concerned about.

My conclusion from the report was that Iraq [as in the government of Iraq] did not have the unenriched uranium; and while this uranium was actually being stored in Iraq, it was kept under good control and concerns about Saddam getting control of it are unfounded.

Further, if I have misunderstood what you have said then I would say that is your fault because you have inadequately addressed the questions being asked of you: in the future I suggest that you make a better effort to address the issue being raised because in this case it was not until your eighth posting on this issue where you fully focused on why you thought it was so dangerous:

It [the unenriched uranium] was still in Iraq. What part of that do you not understand? Or do you simply not believe me? If not, you're really barking up the wrong tree. By "took custody" they mean that they put it in drums, sealed the drums, and left them in Iraq (mostly at Al Tuwaitha). Inspectors would periodically check if seals had been broken. That's what they mean by "custody". Kick the inspectors out again, and Saddam could do whatever the hell he pleased with it. That's what I mean by he had hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium.

But then the last line of your last post substantially deflates these concerns when you say:

As I already said to Manifesto, I never said I had a problem with Iraq having unenriched uranium (though if you want to know WHY, maybe you should ask), I only said that they had it.

Sorry, but when an individual raises one set of concerns in one post, then self-refutes these concerns in a subsequent post it makes me terribly confused, therefore I request that you answer the below questions.

Do you, or do not, have a problem with Iraq having this uranium?
If you do, then what is your problem with Iraq having this uranium?
If you do not, then why not?

Thanks in advance!

Tricky

11th September 2003, 10:22 AM

Perhaps this should be in the Humor forum, but this seemed like a good place for these
Bush in 2004 Bumper Stickers (http://www.jdlasica.com/blog/archives/2003_09_03.html#001432)

Bush/Cheney '04: Over a billion Whoppers served

Bush/Cheney '04: Compassionate Colonialism

Bush/Cheney '04: Leave no billionaire behind

Bush/Cheney '04: Get used to it!

Bush/Cheney '04: Assimilate. Resistance is Futile.

Bush/Cheney '04: Because the truth just isn't good enough

Bush/Cheney '04: Putting the "con" in conservatism

Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for not paying attention

Bush/Cheney '04: This time, elect us!

George W. Bush '04: It Takes A Village Idiot

Ziggurat

11th September 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

Do you, or do not, have a problem with Iraq having this uranium?
If you do, then what is your problem with Iraq having this uranium?
If you do not, then why not?

Thanks in advance!

No, I do not have a problem with Iraq having unenriched uranium. But it is an important piece of information to have. Knowing the facts is important, and if you think that he didn't have unenriched uranium when he did, you may come to incorrect conclusions.

The principal reason I do not have a problem with Iraq having unenriched uranium is that obtaining unenriched uranium is never going to be the hardest part of obtaining a nuclear weapon. Actually removing the uranium is only useful if he has the current capability to enrich it. I never believed he had that capability at the moment, but I do think he would have obtained that capability eventually. But long term, he could have aquired more unenriched uranium easily enough that removing his current supply would not accomplish much. :)