As someone who's been actively involved in politics for many years, and has had a very difficult time finding anyone who qualifies as a true conservative or liberal, I'm at a bit of a dead end. I'm shocked to see that both the republican and democratic parties seem to have chosen to forego morals and logic for the sake of defeating the other party, which seems to be a worthless effort. I have relatives who support both parties, and I get the feeling that many americans feel this way, so I thought I'd start a thread for people to note disappointments they've had in both parties. This isn't a thread for arguing, but a thread for discussion. Please try to post your reasoning behind disagreeing with whatever party/senator/representative's position on an issue, and we MIGHT be able to come to some sort of productive compromise on real issues. 
Also, consider that I'm being EXTREMELY hopeful that you guys will approach this in a calm, mature manner. If this fails, the thread will be locked and you guys will lose your chance to express political opinions on arlong park, so please be nice.
Political Despair
-
-
There are so many problems with the state of politics, nationally and globally you could blindfold yourself, throw yourself at the first idea that jumps into your head, you'd probably come up with a correct response.
Money
Media
Ignorance
Capitalism
MoneyThese are your big topics.
-
I know just about nothing when it comes to Americas politics, structure or campaigns, but wouldn't mind covering England if anyone is interested?
I'm currently concerned about the possibility of the Trident missile programme being scraped to help fill the black hole being created by both parties promises.
-
A recent essay question I had is appropriate here.
The number one problem with the Western Political system is greed, Politicians look out for themselves before their constituents. This is undemocratic and restricts the viable options available to Political Parties. Discuss.
-
I think a big problem often is imbalance between constituants. Someone who donates ten dollars to a campaign fund will be far less influential than someone who donates a thousand.
-
I'm shocked to see that both the republican and democratic parties seem to have chosen to forego morals and logic for the sake of defeating the other party, which seems to be a worthless effort.
Fully agreed. I was just having a talk with a friend about this. Both sides seem so concerned with defeating the other that they have forgotten that they are supposed to serve the people, not themselves. This has been going on for a while but I think it really spilled out onto the lime-light with Obama becoming president. It's really sad to see and I think how pathetic it looks to the world.
How can we a country expect any meaningful change if our own government is turning against itself.@Bad-Beat:
There are so many problems with the state of politics, nationally and globally you could blindfold yourself, throw yourself at the first idea that jumps into your head, you'd probably come up with a correct response.
Money
Media
Ignorance
Capitalism
MoneyThese are your big topics.
Nail on the head right there.
Adding one more to that list
Religion(wait, that falls under ignorance:getlost:)
-
I know just about nothing when it comes to Americas politics, structure or campaigns, but wouldn't mind covering England if anyone is interested?
I'm currently concerned about the possibility of the Trident missile programme being scraped to help fill the black hole being created by both parties promises.
…being the "uneducated, ignorant" young American that I am, I don't know much about recent political concerns in other countries (indeed, I'm currently very concerned with my own country's problems); however, I'm willing to learn.
To understand this, I have a comparison and two questions.
So this would be like taking funds out of NASA?
And my questions are:
How were the holes created? and
Which parties? -
The republican party has created a hole with the war and with bush's "no child left behind plan", and the democratic party has continued it. As far as I'm concerned, until the war is over, the hole will remain open.
-
Both parties are promising the voters more and more without finding the sources of money to cover for them. They decided to target the Missile programme to gain roughly 10 billion pounds to play with, which might cover some of their promised ventures.
As a result we would be left wide open if war were to strike, and seeming as WW3 doesn't look to far off I'd rather have it as added security. Maybe if we had a UN/Europe were to ensure a missile defence programme in place of ours or cover the Trident bill then we could carry this through.
But despite this being a possibility, I would still prefer England to reign over the trigger if the world gets into this kind of situation.
-
^There is now going to be World War 3? I'm a bit worried. Final chapters of many trilogies hasn't been so successful as of lately.
-
From outsider's view I think USA has indeed having some political problems with great hindrance…
First this 100% Democrats vote A and 100% Rebublicans vote B is a major problem… if even one member of either party chooses to vote option that feels best for him then it can change outcome of entire voting.
Its a battle for power and subject of voting itself is not important any more but its a battle for being ruling organ of nation and if party has more members in congress/senate and all vote for same option then surely they will always win, and opposite party has to do same to have any hope too.
If someone from either party decides to vote against his party's wishes and make his party lose a major vote he will most likely kill his political career unless he has secored place in other party but it will be same situation here.
I am sure that there are Democrats and Rebublicans who are having diffrent opinion than majority of their party in this Health Care voting but they just cant vote their own choices.
Second problem is mixing religion and state, in southern states specially if you are popular pastor wishing to enter in politics you will most likely get massive support from religious voters, if you point out to the masses that you are foremost a servant of the God then you will get alot of votes by heavily religious people.In other western countrys this would only mean that small minority would vote you but in many states in USA being a dedicated Christian is actually most important factor where you might get voted.
Also if you even hint being an atheist you will surely destroy any hopes of having political career and you can be lucky if you get elected as mayor in some smaller towns.
Well this is way I see american inner-political problems.
And yeah I really think religion should had nothing to do with politics…in any country.
-
I don't know if many people live/care about California, but right now there's a major problem with budgets/funding. We have public employees unions (unions against the government) that have been throttling Schwarzenegger for his furlough plan, which was declared illegal/unconstitutional earlier this year. That's a bad thing for state workers, but they seem too selfish/stupid to realize it.
The furlough plan basically meant there would be rolling days where people would not go to work, and not get paid. This is different from a sick day where someone gets paid for not going to work. The incentive was people would have more free time to do things, while the government saves money by not paying on that day.
State employees are very expensive because they maintain their working salary into retirement, and the salary is based on experience. So someone who's been working since they were 17 can put in 30 years of service and continue to earn $44,000/year when they retire at age 47.
California law writes that these retirees get priority when it comes to payment, so the only targets for freeing up this monetary sink would be current senior employees (who get paid the most money) or younger state employees.
The furlough plan targets everybody equally, and now that it's been defeated, the only alternative would be layoffs, which is also based on seniority. This means all of the younger workers (high school / college kids) will be put out of work, since to save the budget all of the low priority people will have to be axed first before the higher priority older employees get targeted. This also means that some of the older employees will get targeted as well, although they're probably not thinking "I'm going to get laid off, I'm going to continue to earn my salary and fudge you Schwarzenegger".
I'm a member of the Democratic Party but honestly I am starting to hope that either the Republicans or the Latinos dominate Sacramento in the next ten years because this rampant stupidity is irritating. It's exactly what RoboBlue is talking about - kicking logic and reason to the curb just to defeat the evil Governator.
-
Both parties are promising the voters more and more without finding the sources of money to cover for them. They decided to target the Missile programme to gain roughly 10 billion pounds to play with, which might cover some of their promised ventures.
As a result we would be left wide open if war were to strike, and seeming as WW3 doesn't look to far off I'd rather have it as added security. Maybe if we had a UN/Europe were to ensure a missile defence programme in place of ours or cover the Trident bill then we could carry this through.
But despite this being a possibility, I would still prefer England to reign over the trigger if the world gets into this kind of situation.
I see. And the money they take from the missile program would go to the voters, while the program could be called off/ slowed down, leaving England with a potential gap. I understand.
What kinds of promises? Are there any other programs that the parties could take money from?
When you say "might cover some" it sounds like they're promising more than they can handle.
Are others unhappy with the missile program idea, or are a majority fine with it as long as the promises are kept? (And this my sound very American but) Will the parties try to come up with a different plan if people start to go against this current action?
As far as a defense with the UN, I'm sure other countries would want their finger over the trigger; I know I would want my country to if I lived in Europe. However, for some reason, I feel England has the biggest possibility of having the button-pushing job. And if money was taken from something as important as a missile program, the parties would do their best to recover it as quickly as possible, right? Or at least remain neutral for as long as possible in order to rally defenses before picking sides, or to not pick a side at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong on any points here, please. -_-"
-
I see. And the money they take from the missile program would go to the voters, while the program could be called off/ slowed down, leaving England with a potential gap. I understand.
Pretty much, although their are a few more details.
What kinds of promises? Are there any other programs that the parties could take money from?
Not much, or at least none others available that wont cause as much uproar and have effect on votes.
When you say "might cover some" it sounds like they're promising more than they can handle.
Typical political party manoeuvre used in England. An army of yes men.
Are others unhappy with the missile program idea, or are a majority fine with it as long as the promises are kept? (And this my sound very American but) Will the parties try to come up with a different plan if people start to go against this current action?
They've already both promised so much that it seems improbable that they could pull the resources necessary to fill the financial void without scraping the Tridents.
As far as a defense with the UN, I'm sure other countries would want their finger over the trigger; I know I would want my country to if I lived in Europe. However, for some reason, I feel England has the biggest possibility of having the button-pushing job. And if money was taken from something as important as a missile program, the parties would do their best to recover it as quickly as possible, right? Or at least remain neutral for as long as possible in order to rally defenses before picking sides, or to not pick a side at all.
Rebuilding an arsenal of nuclear missiles would take at least four years plus, which means we would be wide open to threats if the world turned sour. Plus being one of the permanent members of the UN security council means we should one of the forces upholding the Nuclear deterrent that stabilised the world after the War.
Judging from the instability of the middle east, including other unstable countries I'd bet something horrific to occur in the next 20 years. Judging by North Korea's missile testing and Iran's nuclear issue my grim prophecy could become reality in the not too distant future.
-
Either way, Obama was a clear mistake, But then again if we had chosen Maccain it would have been the same as if Bush were still in office.
But what gets me the most; if something happens now, it's not the the current administration's fault oh no, they just weren't aware and so they can some how still put the blame on bush even though he's been out of office for over a year now.
And speaking of that, what has Obama done in the past year that has helped us in anyway? Nothing.
-
Either way, Obama was a clear mistake
LOL, no…
Obama was not a clear mistake. He's been in office little less than a year. Give him some more time before you go around judging him. And at the very least he's repairing diplomatic ties that were cut during the Bush years. It's crucial to have those sorts of ties. A clear mistake would have been trusting the republican party with our country again. Especially when your running mate is no smarter than the average chimp...
One of the problems I have with American politics is re-election. It's the very reason why so little is accomplished. Because every damn politician is worried about being re-elected next term. This is why more risky ideas are put forward during the second term of any president, because they don't need to worry about re-election.
"Wasn't the Internet made for scanlations in the first place?"- Simon Jones
-
Either way, Obama was a clear mistake, But then again if we had chosen Maccain it would have been the same as if Bush were still in office.
But what gets me the most; if something happens now, it's not the the current administration's fault oh no, they just weren't aware and so they can some how still put the blame on bush even though he's been out of office for over a year now.
And speaking of that, what has Obama done in the past year that has helped us in anyway? Nothing.
Kaze using his gun to type.
-
forego morals and logic for the sake of defeating the other party, which seems to be a worthless effort.
From my limited knowledge didn't Machiavelli address this, and I somewhat agree with him, that Politics requires what Satre called, if it was him, "The Problem of Dirty Hands." In Machiavelli's case he stated that Politics requires one to forego morals, rather, Machiavelli tried to redefine morality, well, not really, he called it "virtu", or manliness, and it was the job of the individual to conquer "fortuna". Well, this is second hand, since I haven't read the texts myself. It's the idea that Political life requires dirty hands, and one to forego morals, and it would serve the common person who wishes to live a life of virtue, while that too being noble, to get out of the way of the one who wishes to rule. This is because the person who wishes to rule is really protecting the person who doesn't wish to rule or be ruled against other people who wish to rule.
There's a really good introductory course from Yale Open Courseware on the subject of the Political:
http://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/introduction-to-political-philosophy/
-
@The:
And at the very least he's repairing diplomatic ties that were cut during the Bush years.
What ties has he repaired? He's /attempted/ to talk to Iran and North Korea, and is finding out exactly how uncompromising they are with their hate against the West. Honestly I don't like Obama, but I do agree that it has only been one year so we can't judge to quick, but in that year he hasn't done much good.
Wheel of morality turn, turn, turn.
-
What ties has he repaired? He's /attempted/ to talk to Iran and North Korea, and is finding out exactly how uncompromising they are with their hate against the West. Honestly I don't like Obama, but I do agree that it has only been one year so we can't judge to quick, but in that year he hasn't done much good.
He cant do really anything if every his changes and proposals are killed by unified front of rebublicans whos sole purpose appears to oppose Obama by sheer principle?
-
What ties has he repaired? He's /attempted/ to talk to Iran and North Korea, and is finding out exactly how uncompromising they are with their hate against the West. Honestly I don't like Obama, but I do agree that it has only been one year so we can't judge to quick, but in that year he hasn't done much good.
Hey man. Not cool!!! Obama won a Nobel Prize so he must have done something fantastic, right!?!
-
@Bad-Beat:
Kaze using his gun to type.
Careful, or I'll sic' Cheney on you.
You know how he is with that spray shot.
-
So since everybody are saying Obama hasn't done anything during his first year (not just in this thread/forum, mind you), which sounds unlikely but if you say so, then how much your avarage American president usually accomplishes during his first year anyway?
One would think even long after an administration has changed decisions and actions of a previous administrations are still effecting or perhaps even just starting effect now. And so, at first at least, the job of the new administration would mostly be about coping with old baggage of the old administration instead of creating new baggages. But I'm pretty much politically retarded (I vote a green party
) so… yeah.I can't quickly think of a single actual thing our President would had done during her 10 years of "reign"
. Not saying she hasn't done anything, most of her work is probably rather unvisible for a common man like me and if she has done something big then she didn't make enough big deal of it for me to remember it now.Besides Finland doesn't really need a President anymore. They should either just get rid of the whole institution or give her more power.
-
There's always the fact that the rest of the world is starting to like the US again. I'd say that's a pretty nice accomplishment.
Now he just needs to get tough and get shit done.
LOVE AND PEACE
-
Either way, Obama was a clear mistake, But then again if we had chosen Maccain it would have been the same as if Bush were still in office.
But what gets me the most; if something happens now, it's not the the current administration's fault oh no, they just weren't aware and so they can some how still put the blame on bush even though he's been out of office for over a year now.
And speaking of that, what has Obama done in the past year that has helped us in anyway? Nothing.
While it's true that Obama hasn't made drastic improvements, I hope we can at least agree that he hasn't made our situation worse. Also, blaming problems on the previous administration is something every politician does, whether or not it's true, so that's not really new. Bush did it, Clinton did it, the first Bush did it, and even Reagan did it. Hell, if you go back to George Washington, he probably blamed stuff (rightly) on the British.
@Thousand:Hey man. Not cool!!! Obama won a Nobel Prize so he must have done something fantastic, right!?!
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?
-
…and even Reagan did it...
Reagan had good reasoning, in my opinion. Campaigning on the basis of 'are you better off than you were four years ago' is pretty smart…blaming stuff on a previous administration doesn't and shouldn't mean anything though. What SHOULD be important is what the present administration is doing to fix problems of the past.
-
This is true. Which I have to admit has been unimpressive thus far.
It doesn't help that his healthcare bill has been turned into a complete monster by his own party. >_> -
This is true. Which I have to admit has been unimpressive thus far.
It doesn't help that his healthcare bill has been turned into a complete monster by his own party. >_>Yeah. I'm no fan of this health care bill. I personally am not liberal much, but I see a need for some kind of 'change.' I don't like how powerful our government is, and I do not support Obama's decisions that deal in giving government more authority.
-
There's always the fact that the rest of the world is starting to like the US again.
What is this world you speak of?
Side note: Bush did a lot for Americas economy, after all Iraq's oils resources are worth a fortune.
Iraq sits on 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the third largest in the world. A barrel usually goes for roughly 70-85 Dollars.
-
We're never going to see that money though. o.o
-
We're never going to see that money though. o.o
That'll probably be used to fund Americas war with Iran, or maybe to ensure their claim to the resources in the Arctic.
This will end in tears.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article721377.ece -
No, I mean the rest of the world would be livid if we tried to take oil out of Iraq, since it'd look like we invaded the country for no other reason than to steal resources.
-
No, I mean the rest of the world would be livid if we tried to take oil out of Iraq, since it'd look like we invaded the country for no other reason than to steal resources.
Well they did invade for oil, which is why America is unpopular around the world.
Although Bush stated he went in for weapons of mass destruction despite them being the biggest weapons suppliers to Iraq throughout Saddam's rule. The only weapons there, were the one's bush and his father sold.
America: Here, have this gun
Iraq: Thank you, have some oil in return.
America: Omg he's got a gun!
shoots Iraq and takes oil and gunhttp://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
America has secretly had dodgy dealings around the world for years, with no regard for the hundreds of thousands of lives being taken as a result. Same with England and France…...our Governments will do anything for money and power.
-
To be honest with you, this is the exact reason I despise politics.
Angry debates over stupid issuesOriginally Posted by Drake_Cloud
He didn't come back because he thought he could win, he came back because he's a goddamn hero and that's what heroes do.
-
To be honest with you, this is the exact reason I despise politics.
Angry debates over stupid issuesYou're right.
I think the best way to wrap up that particular subject is to say that all parties involved were in the wrong.
-
You're assuming that this was all part of ONE plan. At first we armed Iraq out of fear of Iran, and the thought that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." This wasn't very well-advised, and it was selfish (considering the result wasn't hard to predict), but it made sense. However, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, someone NOT our enemy, the US responded to save face, thus completely neutralizing any "good" that had come from our prior involvement with Iraq, in order to keep things from getting worse. Then Bush Senior left Saddam in charge, with the hope that it would keep Iran at bay, which it DID to a certain extent. Yes, it's POSSIBLE there was some sort of conspiracy years after the fact to invade for the sake of oil, but it's a bit silly to think that this was all part of one massive plan to steal oil from the middle east. We've probably wasted more on weapons than we could ever get back from oil.
And I agree, all parties involved were wrong.
Also… I'd really like people to stop referring to the US as "America".
Canada and Mexico are America too.
-
I know the US may not have foreseen some of the events occurring, but that doesn't remove the handful of illegal manoeuvres used throughout in an attempt to fix their bad choices. I think you've probably hit the nail on the head in reference to Bush Senior and such.[hide]
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is… important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]
August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]
August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]
June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]
July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories… Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]
February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]
August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern… We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]
This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.
[/hide]I wonder if the world will learn from these events?
-
Yeah, it was some pretty horrible stuff. Was mostly just saying that it wasn't an actual conspiracy, just a bunch of really bad illegal and immoral decisions.
And no, the world will most likely not learn from these events. -
Yeah, it was some pretty horrible stuff. Was mostly just saying that it wasn't an actual conspiracy, just a bunch of really bad illegal and immoral decisions.
True, although I'm sure Bush Jnr had an incentive from Bush Senior in regards to the war being wrapped up. But that itself wasn't foreseen I guess due to uncertainty of where Saddam would direct himself after the first conflict.
Good thread btw, don't close it.
-
Far as the First Gulf War goes, a lot of people forget or are totally unaware that Saddam consulted with the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, a week prior to the invasion of Kuwait to find out whether or not the United States would oppose such a move. The response given at the time was "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" which was construed by Saddam as "Whatever you do is your own business". This followed the State Department telling him that the United States had no security attachments or defense agreements with Kuwait.
Had the United States made it clear that such a move would be opposed militarily, then it is considerably less likely that he would have invaded Kuwait in the first place seeing as how he was willing to cooperate with the United States in the past. Saddam had had a lot of history with the United States; beginning with his hiring by the CIA back in the 1950s as a hitman, the repeated requests to step up the war with Iran by the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and the blocking of sanctions proposed against Iraq by Senator Al Gore in response to the Iraqi government's use of chemical weapons given by the United States against the Kurdish population. Two key figures in blocking those sanctions were Representative Dick Cheney, who was key to leaving Saddam in power following the Gulf War in his role as Secretary of Defense under Bush, and National Security Advisor to Reagan, Colin Powell.
Far as Obama goes… well, here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
I think, all things considered, that he's done fairly well. I'm not happy about his unwillingness to get involved in the health care debate, but I think that's more Rahm Emanuel's desire to get anything done regardless of how well it works rather than Obama himself.
-
Yes, it's POSSIBLE there was some sort of conspiracy years after the fact to invade for the sake of oil, but it's a bit silly to think that this was all part of one massive plan to steal oil from the middle east. We've probably wasted more on weapons than we could ever get back from oil.
If a conspiracy existed, it wasn't about oil, but spreading American ideology through imperialism. There was a think-tank called "The Project for a New American Century" that detailed the blueprints for which countries would be targeted for US expansion because the US "won the Cold War".
Interestingly enough, the first three targets were Iraq, Syria, and Iran, in that order (weakest to strongest).
-
He cant do really anything if every his changes and proposals are killed by unified front of rebublicans whos sole purpose appears to oppose Obama by sheer principle?
This is pretty much the complete truth.
And not just Obama, they seem to only want to make the Democrats look wrong/stupid.Case-in-point, an American girl got Raped in Iraq. She got RAPED. You know who raped her? Halliburton employees. What did we do about it? Absolutely nothing. it seems in the government contract we made with Halliburton, there was a clause that said any legal disputes were to be solved out of court. What this means is, legally, she can't take Halliburton OR the people who did the raping to court in any way over it.
In comes Democratic Senator Al Franken, who the Republicans HATE. He introduces a bill that says that the government shouldn't sign contracts that say this in the future. That if someone does something criminally, they should be held accountable, especially if they're working for the government.
This is about a girl who got Raped. She got RAPED. You would THINK this would be a Bi-Partisan issue where everyone would put away their Republican and Democrat hats and just do the right thing you know?NOPE!
1: Halliburton was hired by the Republican Bush administration. If they look bad, Bush looks bad, and the Republicans look bad.
2: It was A Democrat introducing the bill. Republicans can't have a DEMOCRAT come up with a GOOD Idea! How will that make THEM look?!
3: This is PoliticsThe Republican attack dogs actually went after Franken on this, they even actually used the "Government should not put their hands into businesses" card they used to Health Care. HELLO, The Bill was about how GOVERNMENT DEALS WITH BUSINESSES THEY HIRE! The whole point was about regulating HOW the government deals with businesses we ALREADY Deal with. But no, Al Franken was the hot new Democrat who gave the Dems the "Super Majority" so making him look stupid and his Ideas look stupid was more important than doing the human thing.
Fucking Politics, honestly.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
-
This is pretty much the complete truth.
And not just Obama, they seem to only want to make the Democrats look wrong/stupid.Case-in-point, an American girl got Raped in Iraq. She got RAPED. You know who raped her? Halliburton employees. What did we do about it? Absolutely nothing. it seems in the government contract we made with Halliburton, there was a clause that said any legal disputes were to be solved out of court. What this means is, legally, she can't take Halliburton OR the people who did the raping to court in any way over it.
In comes Democratic Senator Al Franken, who the Republicans HATE. He introduces a bill that says that the government shouldn't sign contracts that say this in the future. That if someone does something criminally, they should be held accountable, especially if they're working for the government.
This is about a girl who got Raped. She got RAPED. You would THINK this would be a Bi-Partisan issue where everyone would put away their Republican and Democrat hats and just do the right thing you know?NOPE!
1: Halliburton was hired by the Republican Bush administration. If they look bad, Bush looks bad, and the Republicans look bad.
2: It was A Democrat introducing the bill. Republicans can't have a DEMOCRAT come up with a GOOD Idea! How will that make THEM look?!
3: This is PoliticsFucking Politics, honestly.
Do not be a hypocrite, she was an islam woman on arabic culture world, every woman gets eventually raped there and they have no real word to say who they want to marry and do they want to have sex or such…. Islam and sharia are such bullshit anyway.
Rape is a horrible crime that leaves a lifetime scars to a victim but in this case its just a drop of a water in a sea.
Perhaps I could gave a second thought before this statement. It was an hastely posted quick response spawned of moment of anger and frustation.
Its a bad post and it gets flamed ahead with perfect justification.
-
Do not be a hypocrite, she was an islam woman on arabic culture world, every woman gets eventually raped there and they have no real word to say who they want to marry and do they want to have sex or such…. Islam and sharia are such bullshit anyway.
Rape is a horrible crime that leaves a lifetime scars to a victim but in this case its just a drop of a water in a sea.
Wait… are you even looking at the same news story?
-
Do not be a hypocrite, she was an islam woman on arabic culture world, every woman gets eventually raped there and they have no real word to say who they want to marry and do they want to have sex or such…. Islam and sharia are such bullshit anyway.
Rape is a horrible crime that leaves a lifetime scars to a victim but in this case its just a drop of a water in a sea.
Yes. Jamie Leigh Jones, TOTALLY An Islamic Arab name… Yep. NO WAY this was an American woman who was raped by Halliburton Employees.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
-
Yes. Jamie Leigh Jones, TOTALLY An Islamic Arab name… Yep. NO WAY this was an American woman who was raped by Halliburton Employees.
AH yeah sorry did not know she was an WHITE AMERICAN woman, missed that important fact. Well this is unheard monstrosity indeed and I take back my offensive words.
-
Do not be a hypocrite, she was an islam woman on arabic culture world, every woman gets eventually raped there and they have no real word to say who they want to marry and do they want to have sex or such…. Islam and sharia are such bullshit anyway.
Rape is a horrible crime that leaves a lifetime scars to a victim but in this case its just a drop of a water in a sea.
Have you ever live in arab and see it with your own eyes? Really, that's a very biased view of islam.
-
Don't be a hypocrite
Don't be a dolt.
she was an islam woman on arabic culture world
Arabic culture world?
every woman gets eventually raped there and they have no real word to say who they want to marry and do they want to have sex or such….
Words cannot describe….
Islam and sharia are such bullshit anyway.
Now all you need is to make some racial slurs and you'll be more hated than Hitler.
Rape is a horrible crime that leaves a lifetime scars to a victim
Well thanks for clarifying that one Doc.
