Hussein info.... - Page 6

Gortha · 2003-03-10, 06:22 PM

@{BOHICA}Navaron:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why is it a bad idea to give the inspectors more time to disarm or monitor Saddam istead of killing many people with a war?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is the answer of the question????
Never read it, never saw it, there is no answer!

Pls show it to me, could be i didn�t see it.

MrVicchio · 2003-03-10, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Gortha
Now i am confused.... ;P

There are some Books about Bush and many true stories about
Bush�s election.... in all these writings i can read out that Gore had won the Election if they did�t stop counting the votes.

pls explain me "Electorial College"... it seems to be a voting-system...

PS: anyway a voter turnout of 1/3 is poor

Gortha.... Gortha Gortha Gortha,

Al Gore would not have won even if all the votes had been "counted" AFTER the election a group of Newspapers legally got ALL the ballots, and when THEY recounted them... Bush still won.

The reason the counting was stopped? The Supreme Court, despite what rumors and bs are spread by the left, did not stop them. Rather they said "You cannot have one standard in one county, and one standard in another county, that is unconstitutional" Thats when Gore's people quit, CAUSE THEY COULDN'T RIG THE VOTES. If anyone was trying to "steal" the election, it was Gore, and he lost his bid.

MrVicchio · 2003-03-10, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Gortha
@{BOHICA}Navaron:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why is it a bad idea to give the inspectors more time to disarm or monitor Saddam istead of killing many people with a war?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is the answer of the question????
Never read it, never saw it, there is no answer!

Pls show it to me, could be i didn�t see it.

I gave it Gortha.

Simple, the only reason there ARE inspectors is because the USA has parked 250K+ troops out side Iraq and are postitioning to take down Saddam. Were we not there, inspections would NOT be occurring. THERE is your answer.

Lexington_Steele · 2003-03-10, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Gortha
Now i am confused.... ;P

There are some Books about Bush and many true stories about
Bush�s election.... in all these writings i can read out that Gore had won the Election if they did�t stop counting the votes.

pls explain me "Electorial College"... it seems to be a voting-system...

The thing is that in the US, the person who gets the most popular votes does not necessarily win the election.

The electoral college is made up of all the members of the house and the senate. Every state has two representatives in the senate and a number of representatives based on the states population in the house.

The elections are done state by state. If the majority of the people in New York state voted for Clinton, Clinton will get the vote of all of the House and Senate Representatives of New York. The votes are not divided percentage wise.

If you have the vote of the most house and senate represenatives, you win the election.

Electoral votes = the number of votes of senators and house representatives

popular votes = the number of votes of American Citizens

Example where a candidate can have the popular vote but lose the election:

If candidate X defeates candidate Y in california by a very small margin (51% to 49%), candidate X would get all of california's electoral votes (california has a large population so therefore is worth alot of electoral votes.)

If candidate Y wins by a landslide (70% to 30%) in New York (which is not worth as many electoral votes as California), Candid Y gets all of New yorks electoral college votes.

In this example, so far Candidate Y has more total popular votes. However Candidate X is winning the elction so far because they have more electoral votes.

Now as far as why Gore lost that gets even fishier. Gore definately had the most popular vote across america, but who had the most electoral votesl came down to the state of florida.

The Election in florida was conducted supiciously and the vote there was so close that they needed to do a recount. The recount there was conducted suspiciously.

Would it suprise you to learn that Jeb Bush (George Bush's brother) is governor of Florida?

At any rate, George dubya Bush is legally president of the united states.

Warborn · 2003-03-10, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Gortha
@Warbon:

Why is it a bad idea, to give the inspectors the time to disarm Iraq istead of killin many People with a War?

1) As I said and you apparently did not read, the inspectors are not there to disarm Iraq. They're there to verify that Iraq has disarmed. Iraq has not done so. Already the inspectors have found illegal missiles, empty chemical warheads, numerous illegal items that Iraq has not accounted for, and there's been a distinct lack of cooperation on Iraq's part to help the inspectors do their job. It's laughable that people still believe Iraq has nothing to hide.

2) Aren't you German? I would think Germans of all people would understand why the "nah, we shouldn't go to war, let's give the evil dictator another chance" attitude doesn't solve problems.

Lexington_Steele · 2003-03-10, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
I gave it Gortha.

Simple, the only reason there ARE inspectors is because the USA has parked 250K+ troops out side Iraq and are postitioning to take down Saddam. Were we not there, inspections would NOT be occurring. THERE is your answer.

That doesn't answer why we shouldn't give them more time.

I am not sure what we are requiring Iraq to do by March 17th? Saddam has already agreed to let inspectors return on march 17th.

Gortha is not saying that a little sabre rattling is a bad thing, he is saying war with Iraq is a bad thing.

Navaron · 2003-03-10, 06:53 PM

"Would it suprise you to learn that Jeb Bush (George Bush's brother) is governor of Florida?"

Lex you and I both know that the recounts were done by democrats, in democratically controlled counties, under democratic electorial commisioners - and the trouble ballot was created by a democrat, and the democrat supreme court was the ones to stop the recount. Not Jeb Bush.

"Why is it a bad idea, to give the inspectors the time to disarm Iraq istead of killin many People with a War?"

How much more time do they need? They are detectives, they are reporters. The inspectors job is to watch hussein destroy and turn over his weapons.

Hussein has killed millions of his own people. If we were to go in recklessly and kill 500,000 Iraqi civillians, we would still kill less than he has and will in the future, so even in a worse case scenario, war is still the better option."

There's your response Gortha. That also shows why you haven't come up with a rebuttle to one of my articles, because you haven't (apparently) read them.

Navaron · 2003-03-10, 06:58 PM

"That doesn't answer why we shouldn't give them more time.

I am not sure what we are requiring Iraq to do by March 17th? Saddam has already agreed to let inspectors return on march 17th."

See this is the perfect example, he'll just keep toying with the UN untill the next deadline comes up, then he'll say, oops I did it again, sure you can come back in, then the UN will make yet another resolution, with another useless deadline, that he'll kick everyone out untill. He's done it for over a decade.

Besides, the US can be a part of something as weak as the current UN, when we commit to something, and set a date, that date is when we expect it done by. We can't be weak like these other countries. Like I said earlier, they've all vetoed, abstained or voting against every military resolution except for 3, and the US has led it's own coalition in every time.

MrVicchio · 2003-03-10, 06:59 PM

Lex, we sent the troops there to show Saddam we ment business. We did not send them there so that Saddam would give tid bits every few weeks or months to the inspectors, he gives all, or he gets dead.

You DO NOT use the military like that, you can't leave teh ships, teh troops.. the equipment there "until Saddam is disarmed by the inspectors" That would wrong, and bad for people and equipment.

HE MU"ST do what he agreed to do, or there will be war. The war will on the hands of SADDAM, not the USA, not the UN.. only Saddam.

Lexington_Steele · 2003-03-10, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
"Would it suprise you to learn that Jeb Bush (George Bush's brother) is governor of Florida?"

Lex you and I both know that the recounts were done by democrats, in democratically controlled counties, under democratic electorial commisioners - and the trouble ballot was created by a democrat, and the democrat supreme court was the ones to stop the recount. Not Jeb Bush.

"Why is it a bad idea, to give the inspectors the time to disarm Iraq istead of killin many People with a War?"

How much more time do they need? They are detectives, they are reporters. The inspectors job is to watch hussein destroy and turn over his weapons.

Hussein has killed millions of his own people. If we were to go in recklessly and kill 500,000 Iraqi civillians, we would still kill less than he has and will in the future, so even in a worse case scenario, war is still the better option."

Who ran the election in florida? Are you going to tell me that Kennedy's defeating Nixon wasn't a bit suspicious either?

But we are not here to talk about elections.

Saddam's killing Iraqi people does not justify the killing half a million people by the US.

What is so wrong about attempting to spend a bit more time so that half a million more people don't have to die.

Aren't those Iraqi lives worth a little bit more time?

Confectrix · 2003-03-10, 07:08 PM

Nav:

I have to side with Lex on this singular point. One cannot justify the killing of innocent lives to safeguard the lives of the future [or by equating what Saddam did to what we intend to do].

Regards,

MrVicchio · 2003-03-10, 07:09 PM

A half million wont die.. I would be shocked if the death toll from AMERICAN hits goes over 10k. And most of those will be military.

12 years is long enough. 12 years and how many have died, been tortured... maimed, raped... all for what? To give Saddam time to do that which he has repeastedly given the finger too... disarming.

Lexington_Steele · 2003-03-10, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
12 years is long enough. 12 years and how many have died, been tortured... maimed, raped... all for what? To give Saddam time to do that which he has repeastedly given the finger too... disarming.

The number of years shall be 12 and 12 shall be the number of years.

Why 12 and not 11 or 13? Seems a bit arbitrary doesn't it?

Confectrix · 2003-03-10, 07:14 PM

The point, Lex, is simply the fact that twelve years is long enough. Don't you agree?

Lexington_Steele · 2003-03-10, 07:15 PM

Don't look at me, I am for war with Iraq.