Americans

[feiterman]

Shall we start on Iraq, oo fun. One for all of you who may or may not have a f**kin clue about Iraq it had to happen if not now, eventually.

Why did it have to happen eventually? Iraq was such a threat to world peace? They are the weakest country in the region. There were no WMD...they were around (chemical) when the US was financing Saddam. Saddam was a horrible guy, but his power was waning. His most atrocious actions were in the 90s- and he was most dangerous in the 90s...and yet all through this time the West was funding him. He only became a threat after he began disobeying the States.

Well i think you made my point for me there my friend, he disodeyed the people who were giving him money, in a region that well doesn't take too kindly to America, so we told him to step back in line, which he didn't, so we took him out, he was a bad pawn.

[feiterman]

A good point unriggable, but i still believe that time must pass before we give the final judgment on Bush.

I don't think a war which 23% of the population supports is going to go into the history books well. I see it as no less nutty than the korean war.

I not gonna even pay attention to that number because im pretty sure that when the war started the approval rating was very high ( im not sure of the exact number) so things can change, so down the road we will see how the history books tell of this conflict.

[duday53]

would you detail how Canada is 'more democratic'?

i wasnt saying by a ton but:in america the president holds quite a bit of power compared to other political people in the government.right? and in canada there is the house of commons, where a bill is presented and has to be passed by the majority of the people in the house to become law. the prime minister has hardly any more power than billy joe bob in thehouse of commons. The main difference is that the president can vito anyone else in government while the prime minister can be vitoed by the house of commons.
forgive me if im wrong or if you dont understand what im saying.

Yeah, you really shouldn't compare governmental systems unless you know about both of the systems you're comparing. Our president cannot veto anyone else in govt. He does have the power to veto bills passed by Congress, which is composed of two houses, the Senate (in which each state is represented by two senators) and the House of Representatives (analogous to the house of commons in there are representatives from each state, the number of which is dependent on population). However, any presidential veto can be overruled by a 2/3 majority vote of the house and senate. This has the added benefit of Congress not being free to do whatever it wants. The American system is all about checks and balances such that no single part of the federal govt (Executive, Judicial, of Legislative branch) has enough power to control the country.

The American system HAS had quite a few abuses of the supposed checks and balances of late (the executive branch going to war without an official delcaration of war from the Congress and judges legislating from the bench, to name a couple), but that's not really the fault of the system but rather the fault of those in charge and of the American people who have failed to cry foul about these infractions. So, anyway, I don't see how Canada is more 'democratic' than the US. Frankly, neither is a democracy anyway. They're both based on a representative system of government. A true democracy requires that everyone be able to vote on everything the government does. I can't imagine any possible way that a fully democratic system of government could ever work in practice. I think that the last 200 years have demonstrated that the representative system of 'democracy' that the US employs and which grew out of the british parliamentary system has proven to be the most successful system of government in the world. Whether that success will last through the next century remains to be seen.

thanks for setting me straight with how the american government works, hey im only a kid i think i know a lot and obviously dont. haha lo oh well

[foolish_yeti]

I not gonna even pay attention to that number because im pretty sure that when the war started the approval rating was very high ( im not sure of the exact number) so things can change, so down the road we will see how the history books tell of this conflict.

Yeah, it was- under the effect of linking 9/11 to Iraq plus WMD...both which have no basis. People approved because of fear mongering....I approve of the war which will keep me safe. The problem with that is that Iraq posed little threat to begin with.

[feiterman]

I not gonna even pay attention to that number because im pretty sure that when the war started the approval rating was very high ( im not sure of the exact number) so things can change, so down the road we will see how the history books tell of this conflict.

Yeah, it was- under the effect of linking 9/11 to Iraq plus WMD...both which have no basis. People approved because of fear mongering....I approve of the war which will keep me safe. The problem with that is that Iraq posed little threat to begin with.

That seems to be the case as of now, and it might be true, but you have to throw in the media factor to the equation. Months before we ever stepped foot in Iraq the media was telling of war plans and everything, I have not idea how they got that information, but a couple of months is plenty of time to move some WMDs, which might have been the case, or it might not have been, just something to throw out there.

[unriggable]

A good point unriggable, but i still believe that time must pass before we give the final judgment on Bush.

I don't think a war which 23% of the population supports is going to go into the history books well. I see it as no less nutty than the korean war.

I not gonna even pay attention to that number because im pretty sure that when the war started the approval rating was very high ( im not sure of the exact number) so things can change, so down the road we will see how the history books tell of this conflict.

Well normally I'd accept your idea, but the reason for war changed, and that is something I find unacceptable for the government to do.

[foolish_yeti]

That seems to be the case as of now, and it might be true, but you have to throw in the media factor to the equation. Months before we ever stepped foot in Iraq the media was telling of war plans and everything, I have not idea how they got that information, but a couple of months is plenty of time to move some WMDs, which might have been the case, or it might not have been, just something to throw out there.

There has been talk that he moved them into Syria- but I haven't seen much to support that. If there was viable intel, don't you think the government would be the first to pounce on that?

[feiterman]

That seems to be the case as of now, and it might be true, but you have to throw in the media factor to the equation. Months before we ever stepped foot in Iraq the media was telling of war plans and everything, I have not idea how they got that information, but a couple of months is plenty of time to move some WMDs, which might have been the case, or it might not have been, just something to throw out there.

There has been talk that he moved them into Syria- but I haven't seen much to support that. If there was viable intel, don't you think the government would be the first to pounce on that?

True, but this is when the whole crap i messed in Iraq thing pops in Bush's head, and goes i can't do it again, so I'll just stop here.

[Guiscard]

Moved them into Syria... hmm

They didn't find actual Nukes, but not only that they didn't find factories to make nukes, any kind of tech needed... Its a very complicated process, just look at the scrutiny being paid to Iran... I'm sure we'd have found a scrap of evidence, especially as we were absolutely gunning to find it to validate the war.

[feiterman]

Moved them into Syria... hmm

They didn't find actual Nukes, but not only that they didn't find factories to make nukes, any kind of tech needed... Its a very complicated process, just look at the scrutiny being paid to Iran... I'm sure we'd have found a scrap of evidence, especially as we were absolutely gunning to find it to validate the war.

That would be very true if the weapons were being made there, they could have been bought from say N. Korea or any other country that has the weapons, although that is less likely then the building method. Still a factory can be destroyed in a matter of weeks and all the wreckage can be moved in the same amount of time too. I am aware of the radiation signature that would be left, but i doubt the Americans have searched ever corner of the country with detectors.

[Guiscard]

The primary validation of the war was for Nukes. Believe me they'd have searched everywhere they physically could for any kind of excuse. If they'd found nukes the war would have been very very different from a western perspective, nothing like the low approval it has now.

Why would he have bothered to destroy them so totally anyway? They were gonna invade whatever and his head was on the block, or on the run, either way.

The whole WMDs thing has been pretty much totally debunked, or at least it has in Britain. The intelligence was based for the most part on some guys PHD study!

[feiterman]

The primary validation of the war was for Nukes. Believe me they'd have searched everywhere they physically could for any kind of excuse. If they'd found nukes the war would have been very very different from a western perspective, nothing like the low approval it has now.

Why would he have bothered to destroy them so totally anyway? They were gonna invade whatever and his head was on the block, or on the run, either way.

The whole WMDs thing has been pretty much totally debunked, or at least it has in Britain. The intelligence was based for the most part on some guys PHD study!

No one knows what Saddam was thinking, but he must have known he was gonna die either the way he did, or on the run like Osama is now. He might destroy and move them to a country that might have the power to use them, or just destroy them to make America look like an idiot, which it does at this point.

[Guiscard]

They didn't have nukes. Seriously. There is no material evidence of nukes. The UN weapons inspectors didn't find any and didn't think they would ever find any. The intelligence we had before we went to war has been proven to be false.

If I told you I I thought my friend had a hidden fortune, but the teacher had a check and thought he didn't, you went and checked and he didn't... Then I told you i'd lied about it in the first place...

Would you still be trying to prove my friend might have a fortune? Or would you just forget about it and try and work out why I lied.

[feiterman]

They didn't have nukes. Seriously. There is no material evidence of nukes. The UN weapons inspectors didn't find any and didn't think they would ever find any. The intelligence we had before we went to war has been proven to be false.

If I told you I I thought my friend had a hidden fortune, but the teacher had a check and thought he didn't, you went and checked and he didn't... Then I told you i'd lied about it in the first place...

Would you still be trying to prove my friend might have a fortune? Or would you just forget about it and try and work out why I lied.

Your right you make a valid point, i would figure out why you lied. The thing is though in todays world intelligence is very important and taken seriously, so its hard to believe that they either messed up badly or lied, but it does seem like it at this point.

[Guiscard]

It dosn't seem like it.. In the UK they admitted it. 100%. Intelligence was a mistake. It was called the Butler Report, was a full governmental investigation.

[feiterman]

It dosn't seem like it.. In the UK they admitted it. 100%. Intelligence was a mistake. It was called the Butler Report, was a full governmental investigation.

Yea i heard of that report, never read into it though. Maybe both the American and Bristish intelligence agencies learned a lesson from this mistake, and have gone back to the best way to gather intel, with a man on the inside, just like we did in the olden days before the first satellites. Don't you agree that would be better?

[vtmarik]

You can watch troop movement and look at intel reports, but if you want to overhear a conversation in Basra between two insurgents you'll need a spy. I like the CIA, and I think they need to pull back some of their power from the executive branch. They operate much more efficiently when they aren't being told what they're supposed to be finding.

[feiterman]

You can watch troop movement and look at intel reports, but if you want to overhear a conversation in Basra between two insurgents you'll need a spy. I like the CIA, and I think they need to pull back some of their power from the executive branch. They operate much more efficiently when they aren't being told what they're supposed to be finding.

Thats what i say give the CIA and all intelligence agencies like it more freedom to do what they do best, spy.

[Guiscard]

Thats what i say give the CIA and all intelligence agencies like it more freedom to do what they do best, spy.

...on you.

[reverend_kyle]

wow. 47 pages of pure pwnage.

NH d.

[Guiscard]

NH d.

What?

[flashleg8]

I personally think Saddam played a bad bluff about whole the WMD thing. On and off since the first gulf war he'd been letting weapons inspectors in for a bit, then throwing them out until the US got too pissed then he'd let them back in a bit till it cooled down, repeat ad infinitum. This worked fine pre 9/11 because no-one (the UN) really wanted a war over something so minor as a few broken UN-resolutions - hell half the planet is in violation of one or more resolutions. But Saddam badly misjudged the US's change in perspective after 9/11. The US government basically had a mandate from its people to do whatever it wanted in foreign policy. The regime clearly wanted to settle some old scores and expand its influence in some areas (A pro US Afghanistan would give influence to the resource rich "stans" of the former USSR - Iraq adds to Middle East oil countries in US sphere of control). Saddam does his usual trick of stopping weapons inspector access to look tough to his neighbors and people, and when the US escalated the diplomatic threats he gave the impression he did have WMD (or at least didn't cave immediately to the demands and deny their existence). It suited him to have the world think he was “tooled up” as this gave him international and regional prestige. In hindsight this was all posturing and bluffing.
I personally think North Korea is going down the same route. I don't believe they are nuclear capable at the present, and their missile testing shenanigans etc is really an attempt to pretend they have better defenses than they really do.

[D.IsleRealBrown]

...and the beat goes on....

[autoload]

They got the beat
They got the beat
Yeah
They got the beat.

[Guiscard]

I personally think Saddam played a bad bluff about whole the WMD thing. On and off since the first gulf war he'd been letting weapons inspectors in for a bit, then throwing them out until the US got too pissed then he'd let them back in a bit till it cooled down, repeat ad infinitum. This worked fine pre 9/11 because no-one (the UN) really wanted a war over something so minor as a few broken UN-resolutions - hell half the planet is in violation of one or more resolutions. But Saddam badly misjudged the US's change in perspective after 9/11. The US government basically had a mandate from its people to do whatever it wanted in foreign policy. The regime clearly wanted to settle some old scores and expand its influence in some areas (A pro US Afghanistan would give influence to the resource rich "stans" of the former USSR - Iraq adds to Middle East oil countries in US sphere of control). Saddam does his usual trick of stopping weapons inspector access to look tough to his neighbors and people, and when the US escalated the diplomatic threats he gave the impression he did have WMD (or at least didn't cave immediately to the demands and deny their existence). It suited him to have the world think he was “tooled up” as this gave him international and regional prestige. In hindsight this was all posturing and bluffing.
I personally think North Korea is going down the same route. I don't believe they are nuclear capable at the present, and their missile testing shenanigans etc is really an attempt to pretend they have better defenses than they really do.

Yeh this is pretty what the whole situation suggests to me too. You talk a lot of sense.