Bush takes large lead on Kerry: latest polls

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 7 2004, 11:55 PM
Troutman, I said what did the Americans actually CONTRIBUTE, not mass produce after liberating someone else's idea. America WAS great at manufacturing, but even that has gone by the wayside. Let me show you what America say they have invented, and who was really responsible.

1. Electrification... While the kids tale of Franklin flying a kite in a lightning storm is charming it was hardly scientific proof of anything other than flying a kite in an elctrical storm is stupid. Galavani and Volta (Italians) were the first ones who really experimented with electricity, developing theories behind it and developing the first useful application when Volta made the first battery.

2. The Automobile... No, Henry Ford did not invent the automobile, no matter how many Americans try and tell you this. He was the first to mass produce the automobile. Germany takes credit for building the first automible and inventing the technologies required to make the work. Nicolas Otto invented the first gas engine which spurned Gottlieb Daimler to build the first car engine and allowed Carl Benz to build the first fully functional automobile.

3. The Airplane... Americans do get credit for building the first fully functional airplane that got off the ground. While much of the technology was "borrowed" from the Europeans, it was two groups of Americans that made it work. Ironically the Wright brothers were the ones to get the credit only after another group ran into airfoil problems and were left to hear about the Wright brother's success. This other group was later creditted with inventing the first "flight delay", now very popular with today's travelers.

4. Television... This was a British invention, believe it or not. Edwin Belin patented the concept of transmitting photographs by wire as well as fibre optics and radar, building the first device that performed this function.

5. Telephone... We Canadians know this one. It was a Scottish inventor, working in Canada, that invented the telephone.

6. Telecommunications... An Italian, Tesla, was the first to transmit data through the air, but it was a fellow Italian, Marconi, that built the first working wireless device. He beat Tesla only because Tesla destroyed his own laboratory during an electricty experiment. The experiment so terrified the young Italian inventor that he soiled his pants. But the day was not completely lost, when cleaning out his pants he discovered the first of his famous the Tesla Coils.

7. The Computer... No, Bill Gates doesn't get credit for this. It was Englishman Charles Babbage that got credit for the invention of the compueter with the development of his Analytical Engine. The first modern computer was invented by Englishman Alan Turing which was used for code breaking during WWII.

8. Nuclear Science... I think we all know that the Americans were the first build the nuclear bomb, but they were only capable of doing so after "liberating" several German scientists. The first scientists to actually make discoveries that lead to this new technology were Enrico Fermi (Italian), Lise Meitner (Austrian), Otta Hann and Fritz Strausmann (Germans). These four individuals laid the ground work for what we know as the weapons programs of today.

9. Rocketry... The Chinese invented the first rockets and used them as weapons as far back as the 12th century. Issac Newton gets credit for explaining how rockets would work, especially in the vacuum of space. But it was Russian Konstatin Tsiolkovsky who published and experimented with the first liquid fuel rockets, 13 years before American Robert Goddard began playing with the technology.

America took many of these ideas and ran with them, making products that we North Americans are very familiar with and are lead to believe the Americans invented, but they did not create them. They gave the world mass production, and I hardly think mass production is much of a "cultural" contribution.

Why is it that when I'm reading a post like that I think of Gus, the father in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, who challenges anyone to give him a word so he can show it had its original roots back in Greek?

Lanny, you must really hate the USA to deny the obvious influence it has.

A good essay on the globalization of American culture. In 2000 years, will the world remember Disney or Plato?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysi...4/0115plato.htm

By the way, it was Displaced talking about Greece, not myself.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 7 2004, 08:12 PM

A good essay on the globalization of American culture. In 2000 years, will the world remember Disney or Plato?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysi...4/0115plato.htm

Cowperson

That was an interesting essay. The writer does seem to give "credit" for the spread of the English language to the Americans and I find that kind of odd.

Anyway... I don't know why we think right now that American influence will last longer than any previous "most powerful ________ in the history of the world". It's a pretty short lived "superpower" right now compared to the ones that came before it. Maybe it'll last forever, but I doubt it.

On the subject of Disney... they are children's movies. The actual stories that came before the movies will be around forever, the movies won't.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Sep 8 2004, 12:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Sep 8 2004, 12:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Sep 7 2004, 11:18 PM
Relatively new concept?

What the hell was that thing in ancient Greece then?

I dunno Cow, was Greece a successful democracy? Do we really know if Greece was indeed a democracy, or just published as a democracy? And if Grecian democracy was so great, why did it not survive and why was it not adopted around the known world? I'm not sure Greece was a democracy as we know it today? I would think it was more like the Roman form of government (appointed aristocrats who voted on issues) than what we believe democrasy is today. I'd have to leave that to the scholars who know Ancient Greece a little better than me. [/b][/quote]
First of all, I'm not Cow. :P

Secondly, you're changing the question....your original statement was the democracy is a relatively new concept. That, sir, is false.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

All the talk reminded me of the good movie Bulworth.

I'm curious to say where this is going. As for the spread of English, I will hand that to the US - they have effectively made it the defacto language just by pure concentration of money in the states.

I cannot add anything else here at this point. Safe to say most of the angles have been covered. But please continue.

[Flame On]

The USA is neither Good, nor Ole. I jest I jest!
But I will say that the very democracy that CP is proud of for the US is actually based on parts of other democracies and even now is less free than many. Privacy act in Canada, Same sex marriage, pot in Holland, they're all liberaties that the US doesn't acknowledge. Perhaps I should say not as much liberaty as other nations, rather than democracy.

[Flame On]

That was an interesting essay. The writer does seem to give "credit" for the spread of the English language to the Americans and I find that kind of odd.
Kind of odd? Down right rediculous in my opinion. Seeing as how the English had the largest empire ever. India, large swaths of Africa, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, parts of China and colonies left right and centre, certainly geographically the largest. Their holdings all spoke...English no less. I don't think the US had much influence on India, Australia, Gibralta, Hong Kong etc.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 8 2004, 02:12 AM
Lanny, you must really hate the USA to deny the obvious influence it has.

A good essay on the globalization of American culture. In 2000 years, will the world remember Disney or Plato?

It has nothing to do with hating the US. Jesus Christ, you sound like a whiny Montreal fan. "You won't blow smoke up my ass about how great the Canadiens are so you just hate them, you hate hockey, you hate everything that has to do with the game! You suck!!!" The fact of the matter is that American "culture" has not really developed to the point of being the dominating culture in the world until the mid to late 50's. Prior to that America took a very isolationistic approach to the world and did not export their culture, which was minimal anyways. So I look at it as what the hell has the US given to the world from a "cultural perspective". In the big picture, not a helluva lot.

The American Empire is still way too young to have a comparable contribution to any of the great cultures like the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, the Chinese, the French, the Germans, the Russians, etc. Give them a chance to have at least a century where they're having a culture impact before saying how great they are. As you said, will the world remember Pluto like they do Plato? Madonna like The Madonna? There is a massive difference between Pop Culture and actual culture. I think the Americans have contributed greatly to Pop Culture, but are a speck on the map when you look at culture compared to the human experience. There are cave paintings in France that have added more to our culture than the Americans did from 1776 through 1950. Since then America has played a huge role in shaping our lives, especially here in North America anyways, but how much of that will be worthy of historical significance three or four hundred years from now. Hell, how many kids these days know what a Hoola Hoop is and what brought it into our homes?

EDIT: To add in regards to the article posted.

I think the essay supports my view in the belief that America has had a huge impact world wide in the past 50 year, but it has done nothing but export "Pop Culture". As we all know, pop culture comes and goes. Andy Warhol said it best when he spoke of 15 minutes. That's what American (pop) culture is all about. Getting your 15 minutes and then being forgotten. I can't think of much that America has provided that transends a generation and is uniquely "American". I struggle to think of a food that is uniquely American (the hamburger is German, and the french fry is, well, French). People natter on and on about culture in Canada and "what is Canada and what makes Canada unique", but what is America and what makes America unique from a cultural perspective? Anyone?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 8 2004, 03:06 AM
First of all, I'm not Cow. :P

Secondly, you're changing the question....your original statement was the democracy is a relatively new concept. That, sir, is false.

Sorry Dis. I was rolling and made a boo boo on who I was replying to.

I still contend that democracy is in its infancy. The Greeks practiced it (to what ends we really don't know) but this was the only culture to really have done so other than the ones we know today. It disappeared from the face of the earth for a couple thousand years there. Even in today's world democracy is practiced to varying degrees with many different systems. Its impacts are different from system to system. It is still be refined and is still developing in many ways. I think it still is a "relatively" new concept and is still not a proven entity for formation of government. Civilizations have used all sorts of methods of rule for thousands of years to successfully build and defend their empires. Democracy, in the form we know it, has been in used for how long? A couple of hundred years, and used primarily in the US. Its acceptance level is still not great. Its spreading, but it doesn't have market penetration yet IMO.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Sep 8 2004, 01:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Sep 8 2004, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 8 2004, 02:12 AM
Lanny, you must really hate the USA to deny the obvious influence it has.

A good essay on the globalization of American culture. In 2000 years, will the world remember Disney or Plato?

It has nothing to do with hating the US. Jesus Christ, you sound like a whiny Montreal fan. "You won't blow smoke up my ass about how great the Canadiens are so you just hate them, you hate hockey, you hate everything that has to do with the game! You suck!!!" The fact of the matter is that American "culture" has not really developed to the point of being the dominating culture in the world until the mid to late 50's. Prior to that America took a very isolationistic approach to the world and did not export their culture, which was minimal anyways. So I look at it as what the hell has the US given to the world from a "cultural perspective". In the big picture, not a helluva lot.

The American Empire is still way too young to have a comparable contribution to any of the great cultures like the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, the Chinese, the French, the Germans, the Russians, etc. Give them a chance to have at least a century where they're having a culture impact before saying how great they are. As you said, will the world remember Pluto like they do Plato? Madonna like The Madonna? There is a massive difference between Pop Culture and actual culture. I think the Americans have contributed greatly to Pop Culture, but are a speck on the map when you look at culture compared to the human experience. There are cave paintings in France that have added more to our culture than the Americans did from 1776 through 1950. Since then America has played a huge role in shaping our lives, especially here in North America anyways, but how much of that will be worthy of historical significance three or four hundred years from now. Hell, how many kids these days know what a Hoola Hoop is and what brought it into our homes?

EDIT: To add in regards to the article posted.

I think the essay supports my view in the belief that America has had a huge impact world wide in the past 50 year, but it has done nothing but export "Pop Culture". As we all know, pop culture comes and goes. Andy Warhol said it best when he spoke of 15 minutes. That's what American (pop) culture is all about. Getting your 15 minutes and then being forgotten. I can't think of much that America has provided that transends a generation and is uniquely "American". I struggle to think of a food that is uniquely American (the hamburger is German, and the french fry is, well, French). People natter on and on about culture in Canada and "what is Canada and what makes Canada unique", but what is America and what makes America unique from a cultural perspective? Anyone? [/b][/quote]
There are cave paintings in France that have added more to our culture than the Americans did from 1776 through 1950.

Yeah sure.

This isn't a debate about whether America's oppressive global cultural influence is good or bad, which some of you are trying to reduce it to. Rather its simply about whether that influence exists and how pervasive it is and how long lasting it might be.

Just to help you out though, an essay saying American culture's high noon has already passed, the author blaming "the de-humanization brought by globalization."

http://www.culturalcommons.org/comment.cfm

Today, the use of American English by non-Americans doesn't mean they have an interest in, or even are influenced by, the United States or its culture; for them a it's just a language, originating in the United States, that's useful in communicating internationally.

The essayist below says America is as much a consumer of culture as it is an exporter:

America's mass culture has often been crude and intrusive, as its critics -- from American academics like Benjamin Barber to German directors like Wim Wenders -- have always complained. In their eyes, American culture is "colonizing" everyone else's subconscious, reducing us all to passive residents of "McWorld."

But American culture has never felt all that foreign to foreigners. And, at its best, it has transformed what it received from others into a culture that everyone, everywhere, can embrace, a culture that is both emotionally and, on occasion, artistically compelling for millions of people throughout the world.

http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i31/31b00701.htm

To add to the debate, an Austrailian television poll asking people in other countries about the influence of American culture:

http://www.abc.net.au/america/results/results6.htm

Cowperson

[troutman]

. (17) culture, civilization, civilisation -- (a particular society at a particular time and place; ``early Mayan civilization'' )
2. (12) culture -- (the tastes in art and manners that are favored by a social group)
3. (6) acculturation, culture -- (all the knowledge and values shared by a society)
4. (1) culture -- ((biology) the growing of microorganisms in a nutrient medium (such as gelatin or agar); ``the culture of cells in a Petri dish'' )
5. culture -- ((bacteriology) the product of cultivating micro-organisms in a nutrient medium)
6. polish, refinement, culture, cultivation, finish -- (a highly developed state of perfection; having a flawless or impeccable quality; ``they performed with great polish"; "I admired the exquisite refinement of his prose"; "almost an inspiration which gives to all work that finish which is almost art'' --Joseph Conrad)
7. culture -- (the attitudes and behavior that are characteristic of a particular social group or organization; ``the developing drug culture"; "the reason that the agency is doomed to inaction has something to do with the FBI culture'' )
8. culture -- (the raising of plants or animals; ``the culture of oysters'' )



So I look at it as what the hell has the US given to the world from a "cultural perspective". In the big picture, not a helluva lot.

This is just so wrong I don't where to begin. You've painted yourself into a corner now and can't admit you are way off base. I can't think of another modern society that has given more to the world culturally than the US.

Perhaps the greatest novel ever written, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Other great works of literature by Melville, Poe, Bierce.

Great poets like Robert Frost, Walt Whitman.

As you admit yourself, great gifts in modern music such as jazz, blues and rock and roll. Rap and hip hop too. Just because you think something is "bad" culture does not disqualify it. Your take on rap sounds just like how our parents and grandparents felt about rock and roll.

The greatest scientific and cultural event in the history of mankind was the Apollo missions.

Two of the most famous people in the world are American athletes, Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan.

US developed and perfected most forms of modern media; motion pictures, television and radio. Many American movies are considered masterpieces (Ex. Citizen Kane, Godfather).

Influential political reforms; civil rights, constitution

I'll try to find you a comprehensive list that outlines American cultural acheivements, because you obviously did not take the time to look at any of the other links I provided above.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Troutman, you make a compelling argument by including some of the great American writers. But have they changed the "culture" by writing a great book? They have indeed contributed greatly to the literature world. I wouldn't call Huck Finn one of the great novels, but that's more of a personal preference I guess. I also don't think that has affected culture one damn bit. The book has a great theme and is an entertaining read, but how has it impacted the "culture"?

I look at cultural contribution from a different angle I guess. I look at whether a contribution changed the way we do things or the way think as a collective. I don't think the US really had much of an impact until after WWII. I think at that point the US has had a massive impact on OUR culture, and is NOW having an impact on other cultures, but forthe most part they were adopters of other cultures as their own culture developed.

One thing I think that is confusing you is the impacts of technology on OUR society rather than the cultural impact of these inventions. Cultural impact means they are adopted and become a standard of our way of life and they transend generations and cultural differences. Mathematics, astronomy, language, arts and literature, engineering, etc. are the things I'm talking about.

I think that America has provided the world many great things but they are still too early to consider their impact on the culture. Television is defintiely one thing that I think has the potential to have a massive cultural impact. As I pointed out, Americans did not ivent the technology. What they have done is pushed the technology to an enitely new level and make it an every day tool in our existence. For OUR culture is it extremely important. Others are begining to adopt it as well. But it is still to early to say that this is a great cultural contribution when there are still plenty of people on the planet that can remember a world without the technology. I measure cultural impact by how generations adopt new ideas. This is why I thik it is way to early to make a call on the cultural adoption of many potential "American" contributions. I'm not saying America has not contributed to OUR NORTH AMERICAN culture, just that they have not contributed greatly to culture itself. A lot of what America has done has not transended borders. Hence me picking out their music, which has transended borders and changed the way generations choose to listen to music (which is indeed cultural). Get it?

[octothorp]

Originally posted by troutman@Sep 8 2004, 07:18 AM
Perhaps the greatest novel ever written, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Other great works of literature by Melville, Poe, Bierce.

Great poets like Robert Frost, Walt Whitman.

As you admit yourself, great gifts in modern music such as jazz, blues and rock and roll. Rap and hip hop too. Just because you think something is "bad" culture does not disqualify it. Your take on rap sounds just like how our parents and grandparents felt about rock and roll.

The greatest scientific and cultural event in the history of mankind was the Apollo missions.

Two of the most famous people in the world are American athletes, Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan.

US developed and perfected most forms of modern media; motion pictures, television and radio. Many American movies are considered masterpieces (Ex. Citizen Kane, Godfather).

Influential political reforms; civil rights, constitution

I'll try to find you a comprehensive list that outlines American cultural acheivements, because you obviously did not take the time to look at any of the other links I provided above.

Huck Finn the greatest novel ever? That's extremely, extremely miopic. It might, if it's lucky, be the greatest american novel ever written. I've never read anything by european scholars suggesting that Huck Finn ranks among the greats in world literature. Probably the most important internationally important american writer is Hemingway, and he is at best on par with Dostoyevsky or Marquez. Poe? Certainly no more significant than, say Kafka.

Music, Americans have been good with of late. Full credit there.

Most famous people in the world, Ali and Jordan? Somehow I think that someone like Beckham or Zidane might be more popular. Or, say, Pele?

Yup, many american movies are considered masterpieces. But they also produce a lot of utter crap. Italy, france, and russia, to name a few have also produced cinematic works that can be considered masterpieces. So not to discredit american filmmaking (which I would say is currently the US's best cultural export), they are certainly not head-and-shoulders above the rest of the world.

Civil rights? They existed in a lot of other countries prior to the American revolution. I'd say it's a black mark that the US reached a point where it needed a war to achieve civil rights for all citizens. Yes, they did the first written constitution. Full credit there.

Oh, and the world's oldest legislative assembly (in response to the earlier argument about democracy being a new idea) was in Iceland, approximately 930 ad.

Now, I don't want to discredit the US, as I think it's a great country, and produces some great cultural elements. Architecture would be one area not listed yet where the US has really done some impressive things. But it's really difficult to compare things across millenia. Is there anything the US has created that will endure the way the pyramids have? Is there a writer (or maybe a filmmaker?) in the US who will be considered an equal of Shakespeare five hundred years from now? Maybe, but it's really hard to say. There's a huge pro-american media machine that we're subjected to that says that pretty much everything that america creates is great. Obviously, not all of that is true, but there are some great things. Hard to say right now what is great and what isn't.

[troutman]

I'm not saying America has not contributed to OUR NORTH AMERICAN culture, just that they have not contributed greatly to culture itself. A lot of what America has done has not transended borders. Hence me picking out their music, which has transended borders and changed the way generations choose to listen to music (which is indeed cultural). Get it?

Than you. That was a good rebuttal. I think American cultural influence is more widespread than you realize. I have had the good fortune to spend a lot of time in Europe and South America. American culture is prevalent everywhere, in the tv shows they watch, the music they listen too, the fashion etc.

I like this definition of culture:

culture -- (all the knowledge and values shared by a society). In this sense, Amercian culture is dominating the knowledge and values of societies world-wide (not all societies, but most).

[Cowperson]

Speak of the Devil - a huge flap in Minnesota over a bumper sticker comparing GW Bush to Adolph Hitler.

Democratic Farmer Labor Party might be responsible.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/9611297.htm

Cowperson

[transplant99]

Not even the remnants of a hurricane will allow me to stop from refuting EVERTHING you are spewing as fact, without taking EVERYTHING into the same context as your "I know all because i read un-named books" view.


Bottom line is the UN did NOT back the United States in this intervention.

Thanks for that. No kidding...and for umpteenth time, just because some countries didn't vote for it to happen....doesnt mean it was wrong, nor anything but self-serving. You still havent contradicted that FACT!

Get over it already. Its done.

So is the war and the removal of a dictator that reigns as one of the worst of our time. Your own medicine is well served.

All the "international conspiracy theories" you want to dream up are not going to change the fact that the international community did not believe the evidence presented was reason to invade.

You make it too easy for a supposedly well read guy.

You are spewing the "conspiracy" angle all over this board that the US is controlled by a bunch of guys that are niether elected nor in power by force, but instead control things because they have been around as advisors to those in position of control through 3 presidents and 15 years. OK...got it.

Here is an example of the FACTS of what these supposed "neo-cons" that controlled the government and TOLD the President of the US to do..whether or not he was in agreement. Again from David Kay...you know, the guy you dismissed as "only an inspector"?>..(I will get back to this in a while)

I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.

The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/


Face it, the US went in on their own accord,

Yep..they had the balls to follow up on what everyone else said...agreed.

Everything Bush wanted to achieve in regards to terrorism after 9/11 he has washed away with the action of going into Iraq. He has lost world sympathy.

What was it he wanted to achieve exactly? Annihalation? If so, at least he tried something and didnt sit on his hands and do nothing...which is clearly your foolish idea. Sympathy? Really...is that what being the head of the worlds biggest superpower is supposed to do? I can see the speech now... " Im sorry America, but i couldnt do what i thought was best because others in the world wouldnt like it and therefor we will allow Hussein and his ilk to conduct business as they feel necessary...which is all OK as long as we dont upset their way of thinking".

Got it.

He has INCREASED the numbers of Arabs volunteering to join the fight.

More made up stuff from your phantom books. If this is the case...why hasnt a SINGLE event occurred on US soil since 9/11?

Cant wait for this answer. After all....ARABS (of any nationality apparently) hate the US even more than ever...and want to kill us all...yet havent done a THING. One more time...got it.

Just admit that this was the dumbest move possible by Bush and has blown up in his face big time. The world is not a safer place, as Bush likes to say. The action in Iraq has made it a lot more dangerous as more and more scores are now to be evened by the Arabs.

Yeah...it was dumber than doing NOTHING....got it. Maybe I am happier that a battle that HAS to be fought is happening in Iraq and not next door to me or YOU. Selfish and self-serving on my part? You bet, and i will not apologize for it.
Get a grip already Lanny. If this thing had come to your doorstep you would be screaming from the rooftops that THIS IS BUSH'S fault as well. So NO MATTER what he did....you would still be bleating like an injured goat about...well....something.

Hussein allowed weapons inspectors back into the country after the last resolution was passed, so don't make it sound like Iraq was completely non-compliant.


Holy crap...are you truly this stupid?

The inspectors you speak of were only allowed back in AFTER the US threatened military action.
Werent non-compliant?? You are truly spewing BS like never before in an argument...and thats saying a WHOLE bunch. Fer chrissakes...THE UN SAID THEY WERE NON-COMPLIANT...or are they part of your fantasy conspiracy as well? I have 17 resolutions from your UN "buddies" that say as much...what you got?

Hilarious and denegrades anything you say just that much more...though at this point what does it matter?

The weapons inspection teams were all saying that they wanted more access, but they were satisfied with the way things were going and felt progress was being made.


Pure and utter LIES. Nothing else to say...i can quote your buddy Hans Blix as saying EXACTLY the opposite if you so choose. Your "books" are making you look foolish man...give it up.

Here is just ONE example from a Blix report in January of '03.

While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current “unresolved disarmament issues” and “key remaining disarmament tasks” in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.



They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq’s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

Sound like "they were satisfied with the way things were going and felt progress was being made"??

Anser honestly.

The fact of the matter is that nothing had been found in almost a decade of searching

LOL!!...OK...im gonna send you my address and tell you that i will be there, and when you find me, i will shake your hand and give you $100...but the day before you want to see me, you have to tell me where you want to find me, and i will have my buddies "escort" you there...and my neighbors wont be allowed to tell you which way i went either....and when you cant find me and complain to the mayor of the city...you can then just say "well he didnt exist from the get go, even though i saw hime before".

Thats your argument. AS supported by both Blix and Kay.

You are falling fast.

Uh no, I don't want the US to go into Sudan.

Why not? Your OK with senseless killings? Your choice i guess.

[b]My point is that if the US is hell bent on removing bloodthirsty dictators, like you say they are, then should they not also be in Sudan removing a maniacal dictator who IS killing his people RIGHT NOW.[/B]

Yeah.....not like they havent gone to war over this before .......whoops. They did go into Iraq to stop this same thing, among other things. What in the hell is your point?

It has nothing to do with me having a double standard,

Every argument you make...hockey or otherwise, is a double standard...dont go changing to try and please me now.


What containment? How about the containment that the US and British forces had provided for a decade? Retired CENTOM commander, Gen. Anthony Zinni, outlined exactly how containment worked when he appeared before a congressional committee on the matter.

Here we go yet again. Double standard time folks. You clammored laft, right and center just a couple weeks ago how the 9/11 commision was full of manure. One that had all levels of government and military give tesimony, and was decared by YOU as a big pile of non-sense. Yet here you are using another example of PUBLIC testimony (to a government committee no less) too "try" and prove a point. Seriously...which way is it man? Your way is OK and everything else is made up? Again...you make this way to easy.

The US had personnel on bases in six different countries prior to the invasion of Iraq. There was an understanding and good will between the Arabs and the Americans. Hussein was a threat to no one in the region let alone a threat to the United States

Now I know your nothing but a looney.

Ask the good folks of Kuwait and Jordan and Israel and Iran if this flippin moron was "a threat to no one"....good lord.

Who is making sh*t up again? Maybe you should do some reading. Try a book, a web site, the Sunday funnies, one of your coloring books, I personally don't care what you read, but try getting somewhat informed before jousting.

You are....like you always have and always do.

One more time you "double-standard" yourself...very good at it as well i might add.

This is what you said to someone else just days ago.

You know nothing about me, nothing about my situation, so I'd advise you to stick to the subject matter

AmI not afforded the same right as you demand Lanny? Thought so.


Blix had inspection teams right up until the US went into Iraq. You don't remember how the inspection teams were warned to get out of Iraq a couple weeks before the invasion

Yes...and why were they there? Because the US threatened...whats your point?

And now YOU are dealing in "what might of beens"?? Holy crap you truly do contradict yourself every time you open your mouth...keep it up.... i find it so entertaining.

Head of UN Weapons inspections? Uh, that was Hans Blix. David Kay was an inspector.

Oh boy. So Blix has a larger standing in your eyes than that of Kay? Yet, they both held the same position (with different names)...and only ONE of them was there for ANY length of time.? Nice argument again Lanny. Wow.

Here is your comparison using FACT...(you do know what that is anymore dont you?)

David Kay is a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. In 1991, he served as chief nuclear weapons inspector of UNSCOM, the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq.

And since you RELY on Blix for your "unbiased information"...I suggest you but some more of these "books" you regale about...he isnt exactly "the guy" to lean on in support of your "argument".

During the 74-year-old Blix's tenure as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency—the U.N. organization that enforces compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—from 1981 to 1997, the Swedish diplomat developed a reputation as Mr. Magoo crossed with Inspector Clouseau. His most dramatic failure occurred when IAEA failed to uncover Iraq's nuclear program during the late 1980s. As Blix told the Guardian earlier this year, "It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis."




Maybe you should do some reading. Try a book, a web site, the Sunday funnies, one of your coloring books, I personally don't care what you read, but try getting somewhat informed before jousting. Its embarassing.

One word moron...MIRROR. Or your Clown Monthly book. What differance does it make?


Don't be padding his resume too much (nee making sh*t up) there Tranny.

Uhhh...the entire anti-war side was trumpeting his words to SUPPORT themselves BEFORE the war.....why is it different now? And you know why they were Lanny...he was there BEST ammo by a mile...whoops!! I hardly need to "pad" David Kays resume, it speaks for itself and its a mile more legitimate than that of Hans Blix. But hey...why let fatcs get in the way of a good Lanny nonsensical rant huh?


Again I will re-iterate...NOTHING i have said in this thread is in dispute with regards to WMD.

Iraq had them... we know that.
Hussein used them...we know that.
He refused to co-operate with the UN inspectors EVERY time they asked before 98...we know that.
We know that once the UN got serious about things...he kicked them out...for 4 years (apparently THIS is the time frame when Hussein got a conscience and decided to be a good guy and destroy the weapons he has been developing for decades....got it)

This will be my final piece on this with you Lanny, because you are full of crap as per normal.

You have rhetoric, bluster, YOUR opinion, and NO fact as to the WMD part of the argument, other than they havent found them. That doesnt mean they NEVER existed.. You argue that Bush "lied" about WMD in Iraq, yet Russia, China, Germany, France, and about 10 other security council members all AGREED he had them.

You havent a leg to stand on in that argument...none.

I await a reponse that TRIES to switch the subject matter yet again, as is your M.O. on everything you start to get schooled in.

Have fun with it..but it really is getting old.

[RougeUnderoos]

Transplant said:
LOL!!...OK...im gonna send you my address and tell you that i will be there, and when you find me, i will shake your hand and give you $100...but the day before you want to see me, you have to tell me where you want to find me, and i will have my buddies "escort" you there...and my neighbors wont be allowed to tell you which way i went either....and when you cant find me and complain to the mayor of the city...you can then just say "well he didnt exist from the get go, even though i saw hime before".

I don't want to get in the middle of a good Lanny v. Tranny fight, but it sounds like you are still harping on the old "the WMD are all over the country" theory. C'mon man, George W. himself has given up that ghost.

Re: the UN. Isn't the war in Iraq contradictory to the wishes of the UN? Sort of a double standard I think, isn't it? "He ignored UN resolutions! To make this right, we must ignore the wishes of the UN and destroy this country"!

Either the UN is pointless or it isn't.

[transplant99]

, but it sounds like you are still harping on the old "the WMD are all over the country"

Nope..im saying they WERE there...even the UN said so. Thats all. WHere they are now is a matter of debate.

Either he did destroy them all, like the obediant guy he was (which makes the UN and several countries intelligence faulty, none moreso than the USA tho)

or

He sold/gave them to some other upstanding group like himself. (This is the scenario that i find extremely worrisome)


Isn't the war in Iraq contradictory to the wishes of the UN?

Isn't the war in Iraq contradictory to the wishes of the UN? Sort of a double standard I think, isn't it? "He ignored UN resolutions! To make this right, we must ignore the wishes of the UN and destroy this country"!

Fair enough...if you want too look at it that way.

I dont understand why the UN would make resoltion after resolution for the better part of 12 years and then not do anything of consequence to Hussein when he doesnt follow them. Why make these resolutions in the first place if he didnt have these weapons?

Yes...it is very much pointless anymore. (IMO only)

[Lurch]

Nope..im saying they WERE there...even the UN said so. Thats all. WHere they are now is a matter of debate.

Sorry, I can't let this one slide. Read your own quote - the UN contended there was uncertainty over whether Saddam complied in destroying WMD.

While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current “unresolved disarmament issues” and “key remaining disarmament tasks” in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.

For those that believe the UN is pointless, what, in your opinion, should be the basis for settling conflict? What is the mechanism to give military action legitimacy? Is it the will of 45% to 55% of Americans that makes something a legitimate action in the worlds best interest? Maybe we should make it that at least 66.6% of Americans have to agree via plebiscite - at least that's a tougher standard than what is currently required. I have a lot of confidence that if 2/3 of Americans agree to something there is some pretty compelling evidence. Although I'm not sure, I don't recall there ever being 2/3 support for Iraq, ergo IMO the evidence only convinced people that are 'pro war' by nature plus some small % of the 'swingers'.

[troutman]

the removal of a dictator that reigns as one of the worst of our time

Oh, good. I did not know this is the responsiblity of the US. I can't wait for them to remove other dictators around the world. When are they going in to China?

[gdoll]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 10 2004, 07:24 AM
Is it the will of 45% to 55% of Americans that makes something a legitimate action in the worlds best interest? Maybe we should make it that at least 66.6% of Americans have to agree via plebiscite - at least that's a tougher standard than what is currently required. I have a lot of confidence that if 2/3 of Americans agree to something there is some pretty compelling evidence. Although I'm not sure, I don't recall there ever being 2/3 support for Iraq, ergo IMO the evidence only convinced people that are 'pro war' by nature plus some small % of the 'swingers'.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq6.htm

About halfway down the page, an ABC News poll on March 17, 2003 sates that 71% of Americans supported a war in Iraq - 2 days before the US went in.

NBC poll 2 wks earlier showed 65% said miltary action should be taken.

Interesting twist tho, a CBS poll from March 15/16 showed 56% believed that Bush had enough evidence to go in, but 49% wanted to give the UN more time.

The mood of the American public was tough to accurately guage in general, if you don't believe this, take a look at those polls, and the different questions and subquestions that were asked. Can't imagine how the White House could have sorted all of this out...