Why the U.N. Doesn't Work

In this report:

You can't rule out that the US hasn't used the word "war" for some time also, it's not just the UN and countries like France and China.

I forgot to add

" It wasn't really a war at all. It was a battle, in a larger war, the War on Terror."

That was you August '03. Don't be a hypocrite.

As far as your first comment: If you think George Bush hasn't used the word "war", I think you haven't been paying attention.

As far as your second comment: that's a totally semantic point, lacking in substance. Obviously what I was saying is the "Battle of Iraq" in one sense is a war, but in one sense it's only part of a war. You're just nitpicking words.

I'm not saying George Bush didn't say war... read my comment. I said 'this isn't the first time the US hasn't used the word "war." '

Are you saying that you've never used semantics?

But alright, it was. But that brings up another point. If this is a war on terror, what about all the other countries? Iran, anyone? I doubt they'll even mention them at the RNC.

It is difficult to deal with all the countries at the same time. We are just now dealing with them because the previous president (a something Clinton...*cough* *cough*) didn't do hardly anything. Now that we have a president that isn't afraid to do that right thing (and the effective thing), we have begun to deal with these countries - Iran, Iraq, etc...

Iraq has been a pain in the back for a long time, so we've dealt with them first.

In Clinton's time, we weren't attacked.

And how have be begun to deal with Iran...a country that vowed to nuke the US?

How is dealing with Iraq before Iran the right/effective thing? How were they a "pain in the back?"

Under Clinton's presidency, our intelligence began to cripple. There were, mind you, terrorist attacks on the USA during Clinton's rule, just not as large-scale as 9/11. Clinton was just lucky that there wasn't an attack during his presidency as large as 9/11. How long had Bush been president when 9/11 happened? 8 months? That's not long enough to correct our nations intelligence agencies, and at the same time do so many other tasks. Has there been an attack since 9/11? I beleive there hasn't.

With having all the radical hardcore liberals breathing down Bush's neck, it's difficult for him to accomplish everything he would like to do. He must do it because the U.N. most certainly won't - they just sit there and send inspectors.

If the U.N. did just happen to find some W.M.S., what would they have done? Asked Iraq to dispose of them? If Iraq didn't, what would the U.N. have done then? Ask them to dissarm again? (And if Iraq refused, the U.N. would then repeat those steps multiplied by infinity. Who knows, perhaps Iraq would've dissarmed just to get the U.N. to shut up.)

Anyways...Bush can't do everything at the same time. And could you get me a link or show me something that Iran vowed they would nuke the U.S.?

<<With having all the radical hardcore liberals breathing down Bush's neck, it's difficult for him to accomplish everything he would like to do. He must do it because the U.N. most certainly won't - they just sit there and send inspectors. >>

Much of the rest of what you said was also objectionable, but where are these "radical hardcore liberals" in actual positions of power? What a crock.

Also, Zoso, you really shouldn't bother posting on people's blogs before you at least have the moment where your shit's together in the planning horizon. No offense, guy, but you're kinda... hmmm... seeking non-insulting term... scattered?

Berard

When I refer to using discriptive words such as "radical hardcore liberals," I am refering to people with the political viewpoints such as Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Kerry, etc...
They have views in sharp contrast to George Bush and other conservatives like me. These "radical hardcore liberals" have different views than what I beleive our founding fathers had when they were starting this great nation.

Now, I could have (and would've really liked to) used words other than "radical hardcore liberals," but chose not to because lets just say they wouldn't have been 'appropriate' for this forum.


Benjamin

How are any of these people hardcore radical liberals? Kerry voted for the war. Clinton did his damndest to seem like a moderate Republican for most of his years in office, and did blow up that pharmaceutical plant in Sudan to distract the country from Monica. Ted Kennedy's fairly liberal, but that's mostly because he's secure in the knowledge that they'll have to scrape his carcass out of that chair when he dies and not a moment before.

It's amazing the way you conservatives can have damn near EVERYTHING your way, politically speaking, for the past 20 years, and you're still bitching. But don't worry, your day will come when all that bitching's justified : )

Berard

"It's amazing the way you conservatives can have ***n near EVERYTHING your way, politically speaking, for the past 20 years, and you're still bi******." - Berard

I personally wouldn't go as far as to say that we (conservatives) have had everything our way for the past 20 years. This country is a democracy, in that majority rules. We are not a republic, because we can change laws by a vote, or place a person in authority to change a law. We have had "our way" for a while because the American people have put people like Reagan and Bush in power, instead of people such as Gore.

We've had "our way" to a certain extent because the American people have wanted us to have "our way." This country was founded by leaders who have had a conservative viewpoint of things, such as small government, minimal taxes, etc... When you start changing this country's laws and ideas to a more liberal society, you're messing with this country's foundation - one that has brought this nation through 200+ years of hardship, and has still made it at this present time the world's only superpower.

Sounds logical, doesn't it?


By the way, I personally try to make a point by using sheer logic and reasoning, as opposed to using inappropriate language to prove my points. Please back up your statments by giving me prove that we've had "our way" for nearly 20 years*.



Benjamin


*If there's too much proof, you may send me an email instead of posting them here - benjibach@yahoo.com

Oh yeah. I'm not saying y'all are dictators or anything. The American people have, by hook or by crook, been convinced to vote conservatively, often, I feel, against theirs and the country's interests. 2000 was a bit sketchy, but hey. Water under the bridge, I suppose.

As for proof, we have the Presidency- the last twenty years we've had Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. Clinton was not a raving liberal by any means. The man dragged the Democratic party to the right to an extent we haven't seen since before Johnson became President. For much of this time, and for the last ten years, Republicans have had majorities or near majorities in both houses of congress. A lot of the Democrats, fearful of their jobs, have been moving more and more steadily rightward this last decade or so. This, I believe, is largely because a great many Americans get their news and political commentary from talk radio, Fox News and other tv sources, and papers like the Boston Herald- and then these same sources complain about the liberal media. Priceless! Like ten George Lucases or Ted Turners could make up for a Rupert Murdoch or a Reverend Moon. This control of the congress allows the right to have a major say over judicial nominees, which had a major payoff when Florida happened.

I could talk about how much better the Right is at the whole money/lobbying game, but this is enough for now, I think. Just let me say that this whole America as a fundamentally conservative nation is nonsense- America was an social experiment from the get-go, which now is considered a dirty term, by those (white, middle-class, male, Christians) who have benefited from it the most! By the way, as for inappropriate language, no offense or nothing but you can go fuck yourself. I'll talk how I please. Can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. No offense.
Berard

" Just let me say that this whole America as a fundamentally conservative nation is nonsense- America was an social experiment from the get-go, which now is considered a dirty term, by those (white, middle-class, male, Christians) who have benefited from it the most!"

Slavery is hopefully also considered a dirty term by those who have benifited from it the most.

I know this is off topic, but I've never liked the whole "intentions of our country's founders" as being a justification for things. They had a lot of very good ideas and quite a few bad ones. Each issue should be debated on its merits, not on some for-father version of "What would Jesus do?"

Does anyone really think they were the end all authorities on everything? I mean look at the way those guys dressed.

By the way, Berard, I’m not attacking the accuracy of your statement. I’m just saying that whether you’re right or wrong about the intentions of our founders regarding this or any other topic is not nearly as relevant as the merits of the topic itself -- the intentions of our for-fathers not being a significant merit in my book.

I can dig it, R. I agree, and frankly I don't think highly of a lot of the Founding Fathers. I'd never vote for a slaveholder. Worst mistake we ever made, letting that damned slaveholding Virginian be first President...

Berard

prima donnas