The RWL opinions for president!!!

[RazorClaw]

 UN are bimbos. Who cares about them. Bush did not say to the public that FOR A FACT they had WMDs, he said they they had them. Which was a decision based on info from his administration. But he's re-elected anyway, so who cares.

[wolf bite]

Okay, let me address just 3 points. Let me put this in perspective.

1)
If someone on RWL has declared war on you, you then beat them up for it, and finally they surrender under conditions, then they break those conditions, what would you do? Slam them!

Likewise, Iraq had declared war on us. We beat them. They agreed to terms of surrender. They then did not keep with the terms. We begged them for 10 years to keep with their word. (Much more then we should have) Then finally we told them they had a last chance, they ignored it. We bombed them. We don't need to even prove they had WMDs.

2)
You are in your home. Someone breaks in and holds a gun at you telling you they are going to kill you. You have a gun too. But what both of you don?t know is that the guy forgot to load his gun. Looking at the gun pointing at you, you shoot the guy.  Then when you look for bullets you find the guy forgot to load, but he did think he had the ability to kill you at the time. Did you do anything wrong? Not morally or legally!

Saddam wanted to have nuclear weapons. He contracted to have them made. He then gave his son the money to pay for the purchase, research and development of nuclear weapons. Unknown to Saddam, his own son took the billions of cash and stole it! When Saddam wanted to have progress reports, his son would set up buildings with a bunch of guys in white coats and equipment that looked like things were progressing. Our spies had seen those buildings, our spy had communications from Saddam?s top people that the weapons were almost complete. So to the best of Saddam?s and our knowledge, there were nuclear weapons in Iraq. When we started the war, Saddam gave orders to use them. The generals were looking for them because even they thought they had them. Just because we can?t find what does not exist does not mean that acting on our best intelligent reports and their intent to use them was not wrong to do.

3)
You are a solider in a battle. There is a guy in a building tossing grenades at you and your friends. He is careless as to whom he harms. You are shooting back at him. 20 unarmed woman knowingly run up and stand in front of him. They do this so that he can shot at you but you can?t shot at him without the chance of hitting an unarmed person and looking bad. Do you throw up your arms and say that the other guy won? No, you decide that those woman intentionally put them selves in harms way!

Iraq put it?s anti aircraft missiles in schools and churches. Those people that decided to knowingly stand in those places did so knowing what may happen to them. We aimed the best we could only hit the weapon. When we could not be sure that we could not hit only the weapon. We had a plane do a low flying drive by to warn them that a bomb was soon to come. If they still did not leave the building, then it was their own suicide.


Wolf Bite

[Ashaman]

 The presidential race has been decided.  However, I still want to debate Democratic people about the issues.
First at bat is PA and his recent post.

QUOTE ?
Posted on Nov 3 2004, 08:55 AM I would like to note that there would BE NO UN without the United States providing 63% of it's funding. We deserve 63% of the vote in any vote. That way, only Bahrain and Luxembourg need to agree with us to get to 66%. Heh...

UN? Nope. USA.

kilk, thats exactly what i'm talking about. The UN is important because its where all the worlds great nations come together to come to logical conclusions that everyone agrees with. it ensures the safety of those in the UN, and unity around the world. regardless of funding. when the US makes decisions on its own, its making decisions without the support of all its UN allies... the US does not rule the world. no matter how much you'd like it to.

The UN had its purpose before until it refuses to enforce their own resolutions.  The UN now becomes a place where great nations come to talk and that's all they do.  All talk and no action.   In 1991 Iraq war, we had the backing of the UN, and yet, Kerry voted against the war.  Did we forget that?  How can we trust someone who said he will only go to war with the world backing when he voted against the same war that has majority of world backing?  During the debate, Kerry said he would not give veto power to the UN or other nations when making decision to go to war.  However, in his run for the senate earlier in the decade, he stated that troops can only be used with UN approval.  Which position is Kerry supporting?  How can you ask Americans to trust a man who obviously contradicting himself in such an important issue like that?
As for the UN, it refused to come to term of what terrorism is.  When suicide bombers blew themselves up in Israel, where were those UN condemnations?  According to the UN, targeted killing of militians are bad, but indiscriminate suicide bombings of civilians are not condemned?  Give me a break.  The UN has lost what legitimacy it had and for us to depend on the UN to give us approval for our defense is dangerous.

QUOTE ?
Have you ever thought of the possibility that the weapons were moved out of Iraq after we gave them such a huge warning that we were invading?

and yet bush still stands in front of cameras on national TV and states that the attacks on iraq were a success. but he can't find the mystical weopons?
also, with the amount of survailence that was being put on iraq... it would have been QUITE difficult to move weopons of mass desctuction out of the country...

Bill Clinton said Iraq had WMD.  UN inspectors said Iraq had WMD.  The French, German, Russian intelligence said Iraq had WMD.  Saddam USED WMD before against his own people.  When the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998, Bill Clinton sent a bunch of cruise missiles against chemical sites that produce those WMD.  Do you expect us to believe that since 1998 when the inspectors were kicked out until now, Saddam has been a good boy and destroyed all his WMD by his own free will?  You cannot possibly be that naive.

QUOTE ?
We tried that. It didn't work.

in what way did it not work? was the united stats under some sort of time constraint here? was there some reason bush had to go in so hastly? i don't think so. not if all those weopens were being "moved out"... or most likely just not exhisting.

We rushed to war?  We spent over 1 year building up our forces and worked with the UN and gave Saddam chances to avert this war and you're saying we rushed to war?  You think it's better that we just threaten Saddam with the use of force while massing our army at his border for 2 years? 3 years? Don't you understand that doing that would put our troops in danger by giving our enemy a stationary target if Saddam decide to unleash chemical weapons on our troops?  In 1991, it took 2 days after the vote to use force for the war to begin.  Why didn't you guys scream that we rushed to war back then?  The UN passed 16 resolutions on Iraq, he defied them all.  He continually shot at our fighter jets in the no-fly zones.  The pattern has been repeated over a period of over 10 years already and you still say we rushed to war?  Give me a break.  Maybe we should wait till Saddam die of old age or something?

QUOTE ?
Where do you get that. Especially when Kerry was married to the heiress of the Heinz corporation.

i never said kerry had no connections with corperations. i said i bush is ruled by them... and i don't believe kerry is. i know the 911 movie was completely one sided, but the conference where all the business's got together and talked about how much money they were going to make out of iraq was just proof, that it was a profitable war for the corperations, and i don't doupt bush knew it was going to be.

Bush is ruled by the corporations?  He's the poorest of all the major candidates!  John Kerry and Edward both has more money than Bush!  You talk about companies getting together to see how much money they make in Iraq as if that's such a bad thing.  If you lead a company, wouldn't you want to evaluate and see if you can make enough profits given the risk of having your employees killed before you do business in Iraq?  Nobody wants to pursue a risky business if it does not see profits.  Would you go into Iraq, a volatile place, to do business if you're not guaranteed of profits?  I don't think you would.

QUOTE ?
Saddam killing millions of his own people was reason enough for us to go in there and kick him out.

#1. the united states aren't the world police.
#2. they didn't have the consent of the UN, which in my opinion is VERY important
#3. there are other, more brutal dictators, making even more threats to america, whom bush seems to ignore.

This I agree with PA.  Saddam killing millions of his own people is not the sole reason for us to go into Iraq.  We're definitely not the world police.  But that is not the sole reason we went into Iraq.  Saddam has proven to be a leader who will use WMD.  Saddam's intention of obtaining WMD and nuclear weapon had been well documented and accepted.  Saddam tied to terrorist groups are also documented and even the 911 Commission Report said so.  Saddam paid each suicide bombers in PLO $25,000 for their destruction.  Saddam was undoubtedly a menace in the Arab world.  However, to me, the most important reason we chose Iraq is because if we succeed in Iraq, it will serve as a beacon of freedom and prosperity right in the heart of the Arab world.  How do you think all the dictators in the Arab world would feel if there's a democracy thriving right at their border?  No longer can Arab leaders blame their failures on US oppressions and Zionism.  The people would have to face the reality that it is their own governments who failed them, not because they were oppressed.  The trick of playing the role of a victim and blame everything on the US and Israel will no longer work.

[Nohcnonk]

 Go Wolf.  Now who thinks that the Republicans are going to actually help unite the nation?

[RazorClaw]

 More than Dems. Did you hear the Dem Californian Senator on MSNBC?  

[Kilkenne]

 Peace, you realize that I'm not saying "AMERICA IS THE BEST BECAUSE IT IS MY COUNTRY!!!" Right? I'd like to note how I was born in IRELAND. I'm just stating a fact in my own way.

[RazorClaw]

"AMERICA IS THE BEST BECAUSE IT IS MY COUNTRY!!!"

It's true, you know.

[Juska]

 Nice post Ash.

Where's Juby when you need him?

Bush wins re-election!

[RazorClaw]

 He's where he needs to be right now. Not posting rants in this thread...

[Peace Alliance]

 the UN has no purpose? the UN takes no action? I think thats a thought you've put in your head simply because you havent seen the UN bomb anyone. You know, the UN DOES in fact do a lot for this world.

Their milennium goals:
Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day
Reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger
Ensure that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling
Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015
Reduce by two thirds the mortality rate among children under five
Reduce by three quarters the maternal mortality ratio
Halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS (btw, bush has stopped the sending of condoms to africa, resulting in a huge increase in aids, thanks big guy)
Halt and begin to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases
Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources
Reduce by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water
Achieve significant improvement in lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers, by 2020
Develop further an open trading and financial system that is rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory. Includes a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction?nationally and internationally
Address the least developed countries? special needs. This includes tariff- and quota-free access for their exports; enhanced debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries; cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous official development assistance for countries committed to poverty reduction
Address the special needs of landlocked and small island developing States
Deal comprehensively with developing countries? debt problems through national and international measures to make debt sustainable in the long term
In cooperation with the developing countries, develop decent and productive work for youth
In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries
In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies?especially information and communications technologies

So as you can see,  the UN certainly does do a lot. those are its goals, and it has many many programs to help them work towards those goals. whats the point of me showing you this? its just proof, that the UN is a gathering of nations, nations that are lucky enough to be in a wealthy position, who are there to HELP people, not bomb people. i doupt, they look at a suicide bombing, and think that its not a terrible thing. however, when they see it, they don't think in terms of "how can we kill them first" they think in terms of "how can we help them". Sometimes, it takes time to get things done. if the US wanted to stop terrorism, i'm 100% sure they went about it the wrong way. because when you blow up a middle eastern mans house, kill his family, or his neibhors, or his friends down the street... they will be a lot more likely to join whatever group opposes the US. the attacks on iraq have no doupt increased the number of people joining the terrorists.

Bill Clinton said Iraq had WMD. UN inspectors said Iraq had WMD. The French, German, Russian intelligence said Iraq had WMD. Saddam USED WMD before against his own people. When the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998, Bill Clinton sent a bunch of cruise missiles against chemical sites that produce those WMD. Do you expect us to believe that since 1998 when the inspectors were kicked out until now, Saddam has been a good boy and destroyed all his WMD by his own free will? You cannot possibly be that naive.

Inspectors were sent in again since then you know. in fact, the US didn't trust UN inspecters, they sent their own guys in and found nothing...

We rushed to war? We spent over 1 year building up our forces and worked with the UN and gave Saddam chances to avert this war and you're saying we rushed to war?

.... yes, yes i am saying that. 1 year isn't as long as you may think it is. 1 year, is hardly long enough in my mind. why should there be a time limit on peace? your saying we were lining out guys up on the border, so it was dangerous... more dangerous then sending them into iraq? possibly... but i don't think we were sitting there, volnerable when we were waiting to invade. in fact, i think now that we're stationed inside iraq, theres a LOT more danger. bush went in before he had a good plan to get out... so now we've got US troops sitting there in iraq like ducks, trying to restore order in a country that HATES them because they just killed their wives and doughters.

Bush is ruled by the corporations? He's the poorest of all the major candidates!

bush wasn't just an oil company supporter. he IS an oil company supporter. i have no doupt in my mind, that when he chose to attack iraq, he didn't consider the profit that could be made.
furthermore, what i'm trying to say, about the companys trying to make a profit out of iraq, is that its WRONG. not that its wrong for them to be seeing if it will be safe, because i don't doupt that they don't give a dang about their employees safety as long as they get money... what i'm saying, is that what they plan on doing, is going over to iraq... taking iraqi oil... bringing it to america, and selling it... what does this do for iraq? NOTHING... its exploiting THEIR resources after BUSH helped the corperations take control of the country. if i were the soon-to-be- puppet of iraq, the first move i would make, would be to tax the american oil companys in iraq, so much, that it gives them the same amount of profit they would get if they were iraqi oil companys. its wrong to exploit a country like that, especially when their poor.

This I agree with PA. Saddam killing millions of his own people is not the sole reason for us to go into Iraq.

exactly, thus it should not be added to peoples list of valid reasons to attack iraq.

you do reolise, that america invading iraq is NOT turning it into a beacon of freedom, its not showing all the other dictators that democracy works. its showing them that the united states think their the world police, that if they want something from you, they will stop at nothing, they will kill your familys, and destroy your homes. that kind of beacon only causes one thing, and thats more anti-US sentimates.

now to you wolf.

you did that thing where you analogys to try to prove your point again... a law school technique?

1)
If someone on RWL has declared war on you, you then beat them up for it, and finally they surrender under conditions, then they break those conditions, what would you do? Slam them!

this is a text based game. when i "slam" somebody, i am not killing their wife and kids... things aren't as simple as your analogy, wolf. just like how things aren't as simple as bush keeps putting them. i think bush got the "stupid" vote, simply because people didn't understand a plan in iraq that took more then two words to say.

2)
You are in your home. Someone breaks in and holds a gun at you telling you they are going to kill you. You have a gun too. But what both of you don?t know is that the guy forgot to load his gun. Looking at the gun pointing at you, you shoot the guy. Then when you look for bullets you find the guy forgot to load, but he did think he had the ability to kill you at the time. Did you do anything wrong? Not morally or legally!

a good analogy... again, its not that simple though. the fact of the matter is, accusing iraq of having WMD's was wrong in the end... it was too rash. there could have been more time to research... there could have been more cooperation with iraq. if the US wants to save the world, maybe the best way is to be making friends, rather then enamys.
heres how i think the analogy should have gone:
guy breaks into house, has empy gun, holds it to your head and says i'm gonna kill ya... then, you can take some time and talk to the guy. you /could/ ask him whats wrong... you could keep your own gun pointed at him, making sure he doesn't fire his... and ask him more questions. heck, you could even send secret spy ants to crawl over his body and see if the gun was loaded.
there are a ton of different options that weren't taken.

3)
You are a solider in a battle. There is a guy in a building tossing grenades at you and your friends. He is careless as to whom he harms. You are shooting back at him. 20 unarmed woman knowingly run up and stand in front of him. They do this so that he can shot at you but you can?t shot at him without the chance of hitting an unarmed person and looking bad. Do you throw up your arms and say that the other guy won? No, you decide that those woman intentionally put them selves in harms way!

I would NOT kill the woman. not if i had the puwer not to do so. and the united states HAD the power, safely not to do so.
the fact of the matter is, their HOUSES were being bombed. people in villages, miles away from ANY militia, miles away from ANY threatening weapons were being BOMBED. i don't care how carefull the US were being, but its true, innocent people were being bombed. if the iraqis had gone an american military base, made sure there were no visitors, no innocent woman and children, them set off a suicide bomb, would that even make SENSE?

the iraqi people, with exception of course to sadam and his regime, are equal to american people. an iraqi man, living with his family, trying to survive. is equal to an american man, who works behind a desk. they are EQUAL. so WHY does one get to send bombs into the others house?

you've said it yourselves. sadam was an evil, ruthless dictator. people didn't have a chioce whether he was in power or not... and yet it was those very people who bush apparently is liberating, who ere DYING by the americans. those very people, who are equal to you and me. ARE dying.

[wolf bite]

 Back to my three examples that you changed the facts.

1)
As in this text based game, the rules of war since before recorded time is that if the enemy surrenders and does not follow the agreement of surrender, you go back to war. I think this is the first time anyone has ever asked nicely for 10 years before doing so.

2)
If someone breaks into my house and points a gun at me, he is dead. Simple! I am not going to ask him nicely not to kill me or to let me make sure he really loaded his gun. In this war we even knew the intent of the enemy was to use the weapons and had asked him nicely and spied on him for 10 years. Maybe Mahatma Gandhi would, no wait, I think he even said that a person has to defend themselves for an immanent threat.

3)
Exactly what tons of homes and villages were bombed? Surely you are not talking about those Iraq videos where they show a bomber then in an obviously different video a house blow up that the camera happened to be pointed at. Please don?t use propaganda of the enemy as your facts. I believe there were 2 missiles that went wild and hit 2 houses. There were civilian employees in legitimate targets that got killed that had the option of working in those places during a time of war. There were the ?human shields? that committed suicide by standing around anti missile armaments. I don?t deny out of the thousands of bombs a few innocent people did die. Sadly a part of the war that Saddam bought onto himself and his people. Unless the enemy is willing to get in the open fields, there will be collateral damage. But the USA has kept it as small as possible. We lost 1,000 of our boys to them. They are now beheading our innocent citizens that are in their country giving aid.

So you are saying that even if your enemy is aiming at your family, you would not take a shot back at them unless you could be 100% sure that not a single member if his family could possibly get in the way?


Wolf Bite

[Peace Alliance]

 wolf, again, your analogys simplify things to a level that doesn't represent reality.

those civilians working for sudam hace a chioce? you're telling me the ruthless dictator was giving them a CHIOCE?

So you are saying that even if your enemy is aiming at your family, you would not take a shot back at them unless you could be 100% sure that not a single member if his family could possibly get in the way?

in this scinario, i'm 100% sure he's attacking me, and i'm 100% sure he's a threat. then yes, i would defend myself using force. but that, wolf, is not the case.

[RazorClaw]

 Well, first of all, Hussein started breaking his little surrender ten years ago. Ten years is far too long. And second, if someone in a clan maxes me, and he's being funded by a guy in the clan, who also gives everyone else money to attack you. You had a treaty with this person. Also, you have reason to believe he will make a kill run on you with 20M skiffs. Pretend that it takes 400 turns to espionage, to be absolutely sure: you find out he has no troops. Meanwhile, you wasted a run, and got hammered by the clan. Attack the guy, then the clan loses a member and won't be able to attack you as readily.

[Peace Alliance]

 despite your best efforts. the complexity of global issues, can't be simplified to redwall: warlords... sorry.

[Aqualis]

in this scinario, i'm 100% sure he's attacking me, and i'm 100% sure he's a threat. then yes, i would defend myself using force. but that, wolf, is not the case.

And the same guy, standing with a gun to your head, saying "I'm gonna kill you" isn't proof enough that he wants to kill you?