Gusher
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll need to check the UAE fact myself, but Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel (of course), and IRAN definitely considered Saddamn a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]Iran opposed the American invasion most clearly -- and repeatedly pointed out the hypocrisy of Washington in going to war against a regime they were supporting in the Iraq-Iran War. Jordan opposed the invasion, as well, and tried to mediate the crisis.

Of course, Kuwait* and Saudi Arabia welcomed the invasion, a position which has destabilized the Kingdom, perhaps for good.

But I was surprised about Israel! Are you sure about that? I mean, Israel opposes the invasion of Arab countries, right?.. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

___________


* Note that Kuwait, in both geographical and historical terms, rightly belongs to the ruler of Mesopotamia. Saddam's original demands were very much justified, in the previous Gulf War! A fact which was tacitly recognized by the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad at the time -- or, at least, not contested. Check the history books : The ridiculous borders in the fertile crescent of modern Mesopotamia were drawn by the French and British --represented by a woman!-- colonialists in the early years of the 20th century, and were mostly dictated by the respective oil companies, in accordance to what they knew then about oilfields!

Re: Gusher
 

Divide and conquer, baby.

This is a gem:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051218.htm

Noam Chomsky: In other words, suppose that the parliament, instead of being an elite force, dominating the population, suppose the parliament represents popular will, say the popular will of 80 percent of Iraqis who want the occupying forces to withdraw, according to the British Ministry of Defence. Suppose that happens? Well then the occupying forces should immediately initiate withdrawal and leave it to the Iraqis. Now there's a good reason why Washington and London are not contemplating that. It has nothing to do with the fate of the Iraqis, quite the contrary. Just think for a minute. What would an independent Iraq be likely to do, an independent, more or less democratic Iraq? Think. I mean if you're going to have a Shi'ite majority. Therefore the Shi'ites will have a lot of influence in policy, probably a dominant influence. The Shi'ite population in the south, which is where most of the oil is, would much prefer warm relations to Iran over hostile relations to Iran. Furthermore they are very close relations already, the Badr brigade, which is the militia that mostly controls the south, was trained in Iran. The clerics have long-standing relations with Iran; the Ayatollah Sistani actually grew up there. Chances are pretty strong, they'll move towards a some sort of a loose Shi'ite alliance, with Iraq and Iran. Furthermore right across the border in Saudi Arabia, there's a substantial Shi'ite population, which has been bitterly oppressed by the US-backed tyranny in Saudi Arabia, the fundamentalist tyranny. Any move towards independence in Iraq is likely to increase the efforts to gain a degree of autonomy and justice. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see not far in the future a loose Shi'ite alliance controlling most of the world's oil, independent of the US. Furthermore, it is beginning to turn toward the East. Iran has pretty much given up on Western Europe, it assumes that Western Europe is too cowardly to act independently of the US, well it has options. It can turn to the East. China can't be intimidated. That's why the US is so frightened of China. It cannot be intimidated. In fact, they're already establishing relations with Iran and in fact even with Saudi Arabia, both military and economic. There is an Asian energy security grid based on Asia and Russia but bringing in India, Korea and others. If Iran moves in that direction, having abandoned any hope in Europe, it can become the lynchpin of the Asian energy security grid.

Doom 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do I support Bush on:
<font color="white"> . </font>
The war on terror - mostly YES
Foreign policy - mostly NO
Protecting the environment - NO
Global warming - NO
Energy Policy - NO
Privatization of Social Security - NO
Abortion - NO
Health Care - NO
Immigration - NO
Tax Cuts for the rich - NO
Bringing religion back into Government - NO
Teaching ID in Science class - NO

[/ QUOTE ]

Next question : If you are judging a man's potential for future performance on the basis of past performance, and that performance is being measured by 12 criteria -- and he fails in 11 outta the 12 criteria, do you think that the man is more likely to perform well in the future or less likely ?

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

OVERALL i support Bush.

I don't know about the "overall" part, but I support the war.

Yes, it would be best if such sticky actions were free of constitutional issues, but it's most inportant that WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE

To paraphrase Ben Franklin "anyone who would sacrifice some piece of his liberty for a small measure of security deserves neither and soon will lose both."

And as to killing us "en masse", stop being a wimp. On 9/11/01, 1/1000 of 1% of our population was killed. I'd hardly call that "en masses."

The terrorists hate us for our open, secular, free, mercantile society. Every reduction in liberty in the name of security is a victory for Osama bin Laden, et. al.

As 2-time presidential Candidate Harry Browne put it, "We need to put forth our best efforts to bring those responsible to justice, and the best way to do that is to avail those suspected of every constitutional protection afforded all Americans."

2700 deaths do not warrant the loss of one ounce of liberty for 270,000,000 people.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy this. The FISA court had been used thousands of times. For example, in 1996, under a Democratic president, the FISA court approved over 800 surveillance and physical search orders. If the Republicans didn't make hay with that against Clinton, why would they have worried about the Dems doing that against Bush?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about the Reps doing the same thing to Clinton or claiming one action is more justified than another. You're making the assumption that what I would condone for Bush I would condemn for Clinton. I'm not partisan enough for that to be the case.

[ QUOTE ]
Especially in the wake of 9/11, I don't see how the administration could have thought the Dems could make political hay with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

HA! Yeah, because the wake of 9/11 has really stopped them in the past....

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with obeying the "spirit" of the law, rather than the "proper technical procedure," it that the spirit is open to each person's personal interpretation of that spirit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize, and as far as my personal interpretation goes, Bush didn't violate the spirit of the law. If someone else thinks differently, then they should feel differently. I went on to say "due process exists for a reason", and that reason is to protect our rights. In this case it is my opinion that such protection would have been moot, and as a result I'm not gonna worry about it.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do I support Bush on:

The war on terror - mostly yes
Foreign policy - mostly no
Protecting the environment - NO
Global warming - NO
Energy Policy - NO
Privatization of Social Security - NO
Abortion - NO
Health Care - NO
Immigration - NO
Tax Cuts for the rich - NO
Bringing religion back into Government - NO
Teaching ID in Science class - NO

[/ QUOTE ]

The war on terror- YES
Foreign Policy- YES
Protecting the environment by NOT signing Kyoto treaty-Yes
Global warming (wich doesn't exist)- not applicable
Energy Policy-Yes
Privatization of Social Security- Yes
Health Care-Yes, it isn't the gov't's responsibility to provide it.
Immigration-The fence should have been built a long time ago.
Tax cuts for the rich(e.g. "supply side economics") Yes
Because he has faith in God-Sure
Health Care-Absolutely.
Giving billions to Africa to fight AIDS- HELL NO
Teaching ID in science class as an opposing theory to evolution, why not?
Abortion- Don't really care.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

Bush, may he ever be right, but Bush right or wrong!

er . . uh . . I meant . . .

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

Do I support Bush on:

The war on terror - yes
Foreign policy - mostly yes
Protecting the environment - no
Global warming - no
Energy Policy - don't know
Privatization of Social Security - yes
Abortion - no
Health Care - yes
Immigration - no
Tax Cuts for the rich - this isn't a fair labeled topic
Bringing religion back into Government - no
Teaching ID in Science class - no

but the most important is the Iraq war. we need a strong leader right now.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The war on terror- YES
Foreign Policy- YES
Protecting the environment by NOT signing Kyoto treaty-Yes
Global warming ( wich doesn't exist )- not applicable
Energy Policy-Yes
Privatization of Social Security- Yes
Health Care-Yes, it isn't the gov't's responsibility to provide it.
Immigration-The fence should have been built a long time ago.
Tax cuts for the rich(e.g. "supply side economics") Yes
Because he has faith in God-Sure
Health Care-Absolutely.
Giving billions to Africa to fight AIDS- HELL NO
Teaching ID in science class as an opposing theory to evolution, why not?
Abortion- Don't really care.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can't tell you are a red-blooded Republican can we.

The scientific academies in almost every country of the world say global warming is a fact. Bush and Rush Limbaugh disagree. Wonder who is right?? Global warming is not in dispute - what is disputable is what the effect will be. But that is another topic.

Re: Do you support Bush?
 

[ QUOTE ]

but the most important is the Iraq war. we need a strong leader right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is the Iraq war more important than every other domestic or foreign issue to our country? And, how much difference does a "strong leader" make in that war?