Chemical ready warheads in Iraq

[drastik]

Breaking News over at NYTimes, looks like the inspectors have found chemical capable warheads somewhere over there. Crap, I hate wars, now it looks like we are getting into one.

[vniow]

Inspectors Find Empty Warheads Designed for Chemical Agents
By REUTERS

BAGHDAD, Jan 16 (Reuters) - U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq on Thursday found empty warheads designed to carry chemical warfare agents, a U.N. spokesman said in Baghdad.

Hiro Ueki did not elaborate on the possible significance of the find during an inspection of the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area. He said an inspection team had gone there to inspect a large group of bunkers constructed in the late 1990s.
Advertisement



"During the course of their inspection, the team discovered 11 empty 122 mm chemical warheads and one warhead that requires further evaluation," Ueki said in a statement.

"The warheads were in excellent condition and were similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980s. The team used portable X-ray equipment to conduct preliminary analysis of one of the warheads and collected samples for chemical testing."

There was no immediate comment from the Iraqi side.

President Saddam Hussein's administration has insistently denied still possessing chemical weapons, which Iraq has been repeatedly ordered to give up under United Nations Security Council resolutions dating back to the Gulf crisis of 1990.

Inspectors have complained that Iraq has failed to provide evidence of action it says it took to destroy stocks of banned weapons following the departure of previous U.N. teams in 1998.

Following a new Council resolution, 1441, passed in November last year, U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq four weeks ago.

The United Nations has warned Iraq that a failure to observe its ban on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons will have "serious consequences." The United States is already massing forces in the region for a possible invasion to overthrow Saddam.

[rainman::|:|]

Gee, i'll bet they're the only country in the world that has chemical-ready warheads. Certainly *we* don't have any... :rolleyes: We were determined to find something to go to war about, and we just did. Justification comes in many forms when you're "fighting evil"... To be perfectly honest, i'd stockpile weapons like this, too, if relations with the US had been strained for over a decade, and the current president was determined to have my head on a pike...

:(

pnw

[SPG]

Whoa, that's bad news, but let's all keep in mind that chemical ready is not chemical weapon. Under that classification my box of envelopes is a chemical weapon ready delivery device.
If the inspectors find a program actively making the chemical agents or find a stockpile of the chemical weapons themselves, then that's another story.

[morlium]

Originally posted by SPG
Whoa, that's bad news, but let's all keep in mind that chemical ready is not chemical weapon. Under that classification my box of envelopes is a chemical weapon ready delivery device.
If the inspectors find a program actively making the chemical agents or find a stockpile of the chemical weapons themselves, then that's another story.

Yeah sure, to the rational.
But me thinks ol' W. will use this to "hunt down and find them folks."

[SPG]

Yeah, I think you're right. This will become another question of spin, and since our troops are already there...

[wdlove]

Saddam Hussein having the 12 chemical/biological ready warheads it illegal according the the Geneva convention. It also a violation of the agreement he made with the UN in 1991. Will have to wait to see what this means.

We were going to war against him before this happened!

[wdlove]

Netscape Poll: Is the recent UN finding of Chemical warheads in Iraq sufficient justification for a war? Yes, Iraq is not cooperating. 53% No, the warheads were empty. 47% America is still divided, when the time comes for war I think the majority will support Bush.

The mood on the ground in Iraq is "very tense and dangerous," due to continuing inspections.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/16/sproject.irq.wrap/index.html

[OutThere]

lets just hope that no stupid irrational motions come out of this-we are not going to stop them if they want to make chemical weapons, and they will just get more aggravated by our pushy prying-though i am kind of scared of what hussein might do with warhead-right now i am hoping that there wont be any fighting, because it would just aggravate all the countries that are already against us more-we are not poerful enough to stop all efforts against us, and as we suppress one another will just pop up in an endless cycle-yes I know that we have the power to eliminate all of iraq-and that we have some unsubtantiated reasons to bomb iraq. We need to look at the repercussions of what we might do. Nuclear fallout will spread all over the middleeast if we use nuclear bombs. Radioactive gasoline anyone? It will spread killing and mutating plants and animals-and all the countries around them will have some amount of fallout. Each time there is a nuclear explosion its just gonna hurt the world more than we already have. Environmental activists shouldnt be regarded as tree huggers anymore-somehow i dont think that people realize the repercussions of their massive suvs, not to mention one or more nukes has on the planet. Next-think of the civilians-wouldnt it be nice if bush started to build an arsenal and the other countireis didnt like it so they bombed us, and one day various major cities were no longer on the map?

Yah, the image of hussein and his wareads is bad, but we really need to see beyond our anger and hatred-and realize that what seems like an effective plan to eliminate the "axis of evil" (************) will only ever work around us.

[SPG]

Ya know, my cynicism is at an all time high these days as I sit in a country with an unelected leader who has no problem suspending the constitution and willing to wage wars on other countries unilaterally.

[idkew]

Originally posted by SPG
Ya know, my cynicism is at an all time high these days as I sit in a country with an unelected leader who has no problem suspending the constitution and willing to wage wars on other countries unilaterally.

your statement even enforces your statement.

[SPG]

Originally posted by idkew


your statement even enforces your statement.

I didn't know my statement had sanctions in place that needed to be enforced. Let's get some UN statement inspectors on this right away so we can start bombing!
Oh, wait, I think you meant REinforces. Oops, better call off the bombers.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by SPG
Ya know, my cynicism is at an all time high these days as I sit in a country with an unelected leader who has no problem suspending the constitution and willing to wage wars on other countries unilaterally.

President George W. Bush was constitutionally elected. In our system the popular vote doesn't count. We vote for electors in each state, separate elections. Presidential election strategy is made on this system, not the popular vote. Sore looserman needs to get over it and move on!

[Choppaface]

I don't think we could have avoided it.... power is essentially self-justifying after all....

[SPG]

Originally posted by wdlove


President George W. Bush was constitutionally elected. In our system the popular vote doesn't count. We vote for electors in each state, separate elections. Presidential election strategy is made on this system, not the popular vote. Sore looserman needs to get over it and move on!

When you have your brother the Governor delete a large number of people in lower income neighborhoods from the voter registrations, then perform lots of other sketchy things come election time and the actual votes never get counted, then you have a very conservative leaning supreme court hijack the recount and declare a winner...that's not an elected President under our constitution. 5 to 4 on the supreme court is not the same as winning even the electoral college let alone the popular vote. Dubya is a usurper of the office.

[idkew]

Originally posted by SPG


When you have your brother the Governor delete a large number of people in lower income neighborhoods from the voter registrations, then perform lots of other sketchy things come election time and the actual votes never get counted, then you have a very conservative leaning supreme court hijack the recount and declare a winner...that's not an elected President under our constitution. 5 to 4 on the supreme court is not the same as winning even the electoral college let alone the popular vote. Dubya is a usurper of the office.

bush got his popular mandate when republicans took control of the senate. plan and simple.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by SPG


When you have your brother the Governor delete a large number of people in lower income neighborhoods from the voter registrations, then perform lots of other sketchy things come election time and the actual votes never get counted, then you have a very conservative leaning supreme court hijack the recount and declare a winner...that's not an elected President under our constitution. 5 to 4 on the supreme court is not the same as winning even the electoral college let alone the popular vote. Dubya is a usurper of the office.

as much as i'd agree with you, i assume you don't think he's the first to use heavy handed tactics to gain power even in the us, eh? (haha. us, eh sounds like usa... ahhh)

[SPG]

Originally posted by idkew


bush got his popular mandate when republicans took control of the senate. plan and simple.

Gaining 3 seats to achieve a majority vote in the Senate is hardly a mandate for the presidency, now is it?

[SPG]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


as much as i'd agree with you, i assume you don't think he's the first to use heavy handed tactics to gain power even in the us, eh? (haha. us, eh sounds like usa... ahhh)

No, but it is the most egregious current example that the media has all too keen to sweep under the rug.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by SPG


No, but it is the most egregious current example that the media has all too keen to sweep under the rug.

agreed

[sturm375]

Back to the topic.

How is Iraq in violation by having these shells? Unless I am wrong, and please correct me if I am, the agreement was origionaly for Saddam to disarm. How much further do you want them to go? The shells were found sealed in boxes, without chemical, biological, or convientional payloads. Is he supposed to have melted the metal down, and made paperclips out of them, and document the whole process with pictures, video, and signed afadavids from representitives of all the nations, the moon, and God?

I know, it's because they weren't listed in the inventory. Let's ask the US to list all armaments in the state of Texas. I'll bet the miss a few things!

Before you all get your flame-throwers out at me, there is a good reason for us to invade Iraq. Saddam has continuely oppressed his people, and for that reason alone we should use any means necessary to free those people. I don't care about oil, weapons, or revenge. None of these things would I send young soldiers to die for.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by sturm375
Back to the topic.

How is Iraq in violation by having these shells? Unless I am wrong, and please correct me if I am, the agreement was origionaly for Saddam to disarm. How much further do you want them to go? The shells were found sealed in boxes, without chemical, biological, or convientional payloads. Is he supposed to have melted the metal down, and made paperclips out of them, and document the whole process with pictures, video, and signed afadavids from representitives of all the nations, the moon, and God?

I know, it's because they weren't listed in the inventory. Let's ask the US to list all armaments in the state of Texas. I'll bet the miss a few things!

Before you all get your flame-throwers out at me, there is a good reason for us to invade Iraq. Saddam has continuely oppressed his people, and for that reason alone we should use any means necessary to free those people. I don't care about oil, weapons, or revenge. None of these things would I send young soldiers to die for.

very well said... i have wondered all along what constitutes disarming...

and likewise, i won't support a war based on just what we know now... or rather, don't know

[diorio]

While this is bad, it's not as bad as it could be. They haven't found any actual chemical weapons, but Iraq was supposed to declare everything of this nature, so it's pretty bad.

[rainman::|:|]

And iraq's representitives are telling us that they *did* document these warheads. Meanwhile the US "isn't sure" if they did or not. i would actually trust their word on this more than i'd trust our government's... since our gov't is moving to go to war, they need a reason. You'd think the US would know immediately if the warheads were documented, and i cannot believe Iraq's reps would lie so boldfaced and easily disproven. As was said, the warheads were empty, except for that one, and they don't have any idea what's in it (if anything).

There's no reason to go to war with Iraq right now. They pose no threat that we know of, and i do not want the USA to get in the business of blowing up any country that posesses arms.

pnw

[SPG]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
And iraq's representitives are telling us that they *did* document these warheads. Meanwhile the US "isn't sure" if they did or not. i would actually trust their word on this more than i'd trust our government's... since our gov't is moving to go to war, they need a reason. You'd think the US would know immediately if the warheads were documented, and i cannot believe Iraq's reps would lie so boldfaced and easily disproven. As was said, the warheads were empty, except for that one, and they don't have any idea what's in it (if anything).

There's no reason to go to war with Iraq right now. They pose no threat that we know of, and i do not want the USA to get in the business of blowing up any country that posesses arms.

pnw

Things are getting greyer. Both sides of this dispute are liars, so we have to sift through the words and find the facts.
Sad thing is that my country is just looking for a justification now and not even a reason anymore.

[sturm375]

Originally posted by SPG


Things are getting greyer. Both sides of this dispute are liars, so we have to sift through the words and find the facts.
Sad thing is that my country is just looking for a justification now and not even a reason anymore.

This was publishied in the Chicago Tribune yesterday.

[Backtothemac]

Ok, wow, a lot to say.

First
Strum,
Yes, they are in material breach by having the delivery methods to use chemical or biological agents. They would have had to declare them to the UN. They did not. They were not allowed to have these systems after the Gulf War either. Those previous resolutions prohibited these systems as well.

SPG,
Shut up. Sorry, but I cannot think of one nice thing to say to you right now. Prove, please prove any conspiracy by Jeb to help George. NOONE, and I mean NOONE could have known that Florida would be that close. Jeb doesn't have the power to delete people off the voter registration list. Now would you like to discuss the facts. The people that were in prison and still voted for Gore, the Haitians that were rounded up and told that if they did not vote for Gore that they would be shipped back to Hati. Come on man, get with the program and realize that they are all crooks, but some are less crooked than the others.

Everyone.
This has nothing to do with W, and everything to do with the precious UN that everyone always wants to defend, even though I say it is unconstitutional. The UN has given a set of instructions for Iraq. If we find that they have violated it, then see ya Sadam.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
And iraq's representitives are telling us that they *did* document these warheads. Meanwhile the US "isn't sure" if they did or not. i would actually trust their word on this more than i'd trust our government's... since our gov't is moving to go to war, they need a reason. You'd think the US would know immediately if the warheads were documented, and i cannot believe Iraq's reps would lie so boldfaced and easily disproven. As was said, the warheads were empty, except for that one, and they don't have any idea what's in it (if anything).

There's no reason to go to war with Iraq right now. They pose no threat that we know of, and i do not want the USA to get in the business of blowing up any country that posesses arms.

pnw
Paul, you are smarter than this. You "can't believe that Iraq's res would lie so boldfaced". Look at history! What do you think they have done since 1991? Yes, they do pose a threat. They have several tons of VX gas that we know they have and yet they have not accounted for it. We know they have it because of their own documents that we found post Gulf War. Several hundred liters of Botulism, several tons of what you need to make anthrax. We know for a fact that they have supported terror organizations around the world.

Do you not remember 9/11! Put 2 pounds of VX on those planes, and you loose 10 million people in NY, and another 2 million in DC. Got that many body bags? Why can't everyone see this for what it is instead of wanting to hug your neighbor. We know for a fact through their records that they have actively pursued nuclear weapons, and that if they get them will use them against our allies (Israel) and us if possible.

Again, research this, you are smarter than this!

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by diorio
While this is bad, it's not as bad as it could be. They haven't found any actual chemical weapons, but Iraq was supposed to declare everything of this nature, so it's pretty bad.

Actually they have found Anthrax on artillery rounds there. Just did not hang in the news long.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

SPG,
Shut up. Sorry, but I cannot think of one nice thing to say to you right now. Prove, please prove any conspiracy by Jeb to help George. NOONE, and I mean NOONE could have known that Florida would be that close. Jeb doesn't have the power to delete people off the voter registration list. Now would you like to discuss the facts. The people that were in prison and still voted for Gore, the Haitians that were rounded up and told that if they did not vote for Gore that they would be shipped back to Hati. Come on man, get with the program and realize that they are all crooks, but some are less crooked than the others.

I don't really want to revisit this whole thing either, but there was a very clear chain of events that happened prior to the 2000 elections. Jeb Bush orders the secretary of state to clean up the voting rolls. The secretary of state then hires a company to do just that, but all the instructions given are biased towards cleaning counties that have higher number of minorities or have historically voted democrat. The company is instructed that if there is any doubt at all whether a name is valid, remove it.
At that point I couldn't imagine that anyone thought it would be enough to sway the entire race. BBC did a full report on it.
The recount. If the supreme court had not stepped in and all the votes of Florida were actually counted, Gore would have won. The investigation after the election proved this.

These stories of Haitians being threatened and "rounded up"...I've never heard that one before, was it really a news piece or just a comment by Rush Limbaugh? The flaw with that is if they're Haitians they can't vote. Last time I checked you have to be a citizen to vote. Also as a US citizen you can't be shipped off to another country unless you're being extradited for committing a crime in that country.
I've heard of some isolated attempts at either spreading misinformation or other ways to influence people voting coming from people backing both sides, however the key difference is when those people are in public office or representing the government and they do these things...then it is far more serious.

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Everyone.
This has nothing to do with W, and everything to do with the precious UN that everyone always wants to defend, even though I say it is unconstitutional. The UN has given a set of instructions for Iraq. If we find that they have violated it, then see ya Sadam.

Call the UN unconstitutional if you like, but this isn't about the UN either. It is about bush's regime wanting to take out saddam's regime. The UN, the war on terrorism, oil supply, weapons, flag waving, saddam's mustache, it doesn't matter. dubya wants a war and he will make a war that will kill hundreds of thousands of people. Right now the white house is only looking for the justification that will fit their predetermined course of action, whatever will poll the best will be held up as the reason we attacked Iraq.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by SPG


I don't really want to revisit this whole thing either, but there was a very clear chain of events that happened prior to the 2000 elections. Jeb Bush orders the secretary of state to clean up the voting rolls. The secretary of state then hires a company to do just that, but all the instructions given are biased towards cleaning counties that have higher number of minorities or have historically voted democrat.
Ok, this was done in every state in the US. it is called purging the voting list. Nothing new. Gets all the dead people off the list, the people who have left the state etc. Every state did this before the election. Everyone. The counties that had the most minorities. hmmmm, would those also not be the largest counties? The ones with the most people to purge off the list. Actually, since I am from Florida, and my father was a cop there for over 20 years, there are counties that have a far higher percentage of minorities than Dade, and the other counties in the south. Conspiracy. Nope. Just SOP.


The recount. If the supreme court had not stepped in and all the votes of Florida were actually counted, Gore would have won. The investigation after the election proved this.


Nope. Even mcrain will defend this. Not one organization that I know of, and I know of at least 15 that have done this has determined that Gore would have one. Here is the deal. You say if they would have recounted. They did. Three times state wide. Three times! Now remember the "votes" in question with the hanging chads, they are not votes, they are discarded ballots. Ballots that were approved by the democrats in charge prior to the election. A ballot doesn't become a vote until you correctly fill it out. My wife did not get her "vote" counted in that election because she did not complete her "ballot" in the correct way. She realized it when she got home, and you know what. Tuff. If you don't follow directions, your vote should not count.

[alex_ant]

In a few months, we're going to be participating in a war that will kill thousands of people, many of whom being Iraqi civilians. We will be successful; Iraq's regime will be toppled and, if my optimism pays off, we'll replace it with one that's democratic. Freedom and liberty will prevail. The country that once harbored al-Qaida terrorists (if it did) will be inclined to do so no more, nor will continue to maintain stashes of chemical & biological weapons in its basement. (If it was)

What then?

"Damn," says al-Qaida. "Now that Iraq is gone, there's nowhere we can train." ????

"Damn," says Syria. "Now that Iraq is gone, our whole down-with-the-U.S. schtick is finished. I guess we have no choice but to love the U.S. now." ????

"Damn," says bin Laden. "I really respect a show of force. Maybe Bush isn't so bad after all." ????

Fighting terrorism is like fighting the chicken pox. You can pop the blisters all you want, but it won't affect the virus that's causing them. We would have to be insane to think that a successful war in Iraq will lead to anything but more instances of anti-western sentiment around the world and anti-western terrorism everywhere. A war with Iraq is the first step in a war with an entire hemisphere, and it will remain this way until the U.S. adopts a more humble, more consistent, less self-righteous approach to foreign policy.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Ok, this was done in every state in the US. it is called purging the voting list. Nothing new. ... Conspiracy. Nope. Just SOP.


If I'm washing my car and a little mist from the spray floats over to you, it is not the same as if I walk over with the hose and spray you in the face. It's a question of degrees and intent.
Did they think by going about the purge more aggressively in the minority comunities would seal the deal for dubya? Probably not, but did they think it might help some of their buddies in local races? Probably.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by SPG


If I'm washing my car and a little mist from the spray floats over to you, it is not the same as if I walk over with the hose and spray you in the face. It's a question of degrees and intent.
Did they think by going about the purge more aggressively in the minority comunities would seal the deal for dubya? Probably not, but did they think it might help some of their buddies in local races? Probably.

Nope, no effect. The districts are drawn to help minorities get elect to congress. Look at it. Everything by republicans is not done with motive. That is normal to do that. California had over 1 million ballots not counted because they were not filled out correctly. The system cannot assume what a person intended. That is just crazy. Count what comes through, and let human passon be removed from the system. I would say the same thing regardless of who came out on top. We must have respect for the system and laws that are in place prior to the election.

[SPG]

The purging of the voter rolls didn't just remove dead people and people who were no longer eligable to vote. It removed active registered voters, voters who leaned in favor of Democrats.

When the final reports were in, a recount of valid ballots for the entire state showed that had a manual and full recount been allowed to take place statewide that Gore would have won. If only the counties Gore wanted recounted were, then he would have lost. This did not include any of the "questionable ballots" which if allowed would have put Gore well ahead of Bush.

Let us not forget that Gore did win the popular vote nationaly. I know that's not what counts in our system, but it's hard to get over seeing the guy who got fewer votes appointed by the supreme court.

[SPG]

Districts are drawn by the incumbents to keep the incumbents in office, not by minorities trying to get in.

[Actuary]

Originally posted by SPG
When the final reports were in, a recount of valid ballots for the entire state showed that had a manual and full recount been allowed to take place statewide that Gore would have won. If only the counties Gore wanted recounted were, then he would have lost. This did not include any of the "questionable ballots" which if allowed would have put Gore well ahead of Bush.
What is your source for this information? From what I recall, when a few of the media companies (including the St Petersburg Times) requested the balots to perform manual counting, they found that a recount of the entre state had shown that Bush would have won by a bigger margin than he actually did. www.sptimes.com (http://www.sptimes.com)

Let's put this off topic subject to rest. the 2000 elections are over. We can't change them now. If the people don't want Bush in office, they will show it in 2004 by voting for the correct electoral voters.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by SPG
The purging of the voter rolls didn't just remove dead people and people who were no longer eligable to vote. It removed active registered voters, voters who leaned in favor of Democrats.

When the final reports were in, a recount of valid ballots for the entire state showed that had a manual and full recount been allowed to take place statewide that Gore would have won. If only the counties Gore wanted recounted were, then he would have lost. This did not include any of the "questionable ballots" which if allowed would have put Gore well ahead of Bush.

Let us not forget that Gore did win the popular vote nationaly. I know that's not what counts in our system, but it's hard to get over seeing the guy who got fewer votes appointed by the supreme court.
I agree with Actuary on this. What source are you quoting? All of the major news agencies agree with the St. Pete Times. And no repbulicans were removed from the list. That is just skuttlebutt, and hogwash. Secondly, it doesn't matter if Gore won the popular vote. Before the election he was asked if Bush won the popluar vote, but he won the college what he thought about that and Gore said that Bush would have to respect the system. I don't want a popular vote. I want States to be represented. I don't want my voice, and vote to mean nothing. If it was popular vote, California, New York, Texas, Florida, Virginia, Pennsilvania, Michigan and Ohio would be about all you would need to win the election. So, where are the other 42 states in the mix?

[SPG]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

I agree with Actuary on this. What source are you quoting? All of the major news agencies agree with the St. Pete Times. And no repbulicans were removed from the list. That is just skuttlebutt, and hogwash. Secondly, it doesn't matter if Gore won the popular vote. Before the election he was asked if Bush won the popluar vote, but he won the college what he thought about that and Gore said that Bush would have to respect the system. I don't want a popular vote. I want States to be represented. I don't want my voice, and vote to mean nothing. If it was popular vote, California, New York, Texas, Florida, Virginia, Pennsilvania, Michigan and Ohio would be about all you would need to win the election. So, where are the other 42 states in the mix?

The headlines on the story all read that bush would still have won, but when you got into the story, they said that if the whole state was recounted Gore would have won. The claim that bush still wins was based on recounting the counties that Gore wanted recounted. I'll have to dig a little when I have time and have a better internet connection, but I'm not imagining it, NPR's "On the Media" even reported on the way it was misreported.
The over agressive purge of the minority voters did happen. It is fact that many eligible voters were denied their right to vote. What is debatable is whether this was done intentionally, or was an "honest mistake".
As far as the electoral college system goes, it's a load of crap and was based on necessity that arose from two things. First that without more modern systems an exact count of the votes was nearly impossible. Second that it gave a safety check in case people really were too stupid to handle this whole democracy thing.
How can you support the electoral college system except that it serves your interests? So you're saying that the more liberal majority that lives near the coasts should defer to the more conservative minority of the middle states?
And yes this is getting off the topic so if you like start another thread.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by SPG

As far as the electoral college system goes, it's a load of crap and was based on necessity that arose from two things. First that without more modern systems an exact count of the votes was nearly impossible. Second that it gave a safety check in case people really were too stupid to handle this whole democracy thing.
How can you support the electoral college system except that it serves your interests? So you're saying that the more liberal majority that lives near the coasts should defer to the more conservative minority of the middle states?
And yes this is getting off the topic so if you like start another thread.

Um, no. Here is a history lesson for you. It protects the smaller states from loosing Power. See, the larger states would have so much power in a popular vote that the small states would loose their voice. Not about democrats, and republicans, but about states power.

[SPG]

Funny, I always thought that the president was elected to serve the people, not the states.


But hey, you Southerners are all about that "states rights" thing.;)

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by SPG
Funny, I always thought that the president was elected to serve the people, not the states.


But hey, you Southerners are all about that "states rights" thing.;)

Yep, I am 100% for states rights. That was the premise that the ENITRE country was founded on. A balance between states rights and a strong central government.

[sturm375]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Yep, I am 100% for states rights. That was the premise that the ENITRE country was founded on. A balance between states rights and a strong central government.

Then you must hate President Lincoln?

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by sturm375


Then you must hate President Lincoln?
Did you not see him post "A balance between states rights and a strong central government"?

I don't see how Lincoln was in any way trying to grant the federal government full control over the Union. States have rights but the right to secede is not one of them.

What a cheap shot.

[SPG]

State's rights or not, more power now rests with the Federal Government, so shouldn't that government be more representative of the people?
The trend to shift the power from the states started a long time ago. If you remember from school, Senators used to be chosen by the governors of each state. Also the vice president was the guy who came in second. Both of these things were scrapped because they either didn't work or didn't represent the interests of the people. Why in this day and age we should fail to have a directly elected president is beyond me.

[Choppaface]

Originally posted by sturm375


Then you must hate President Lincoln?

no but he can't because Lincoln was a Republican!
and we wouldn't want to have any right wing contradictions, now would we ;) :D :D :D

[Backtothemac]

I love how people think that republicans must have hated Lincoln. He was for states rights. but his beef was that the states did not have the right to leave the Union. Only one state can do that if it chooses to do so. It can also divide into 4 smaller states in they choose.

So, yea, I love Lincoln. 1st Republican president.

[Choppaface]

did you know one of Sadam's ancient relatives was a republican too? republicans must be terrorists then!!! O_O_O_O

[GrandShenlong]

Whoa, not to be rude, but isn't this thread supposed to be about... Iraq?

Anyways, I agree with alex_ant, who said that beating down Iraq would just promote more anti-Western sentiment. I wholeheartedly agree, I mean... why else would even the UN oppose the mighty and rich United States. Heck, the German prime minister (i think it was the prime minister... president?) flamed the US to GAIN votes. I don't think that since the dawn of time, there had EVER been such a blunt opposition to the US from an ally. Okay, maybe I exaggerate, but you get the point.

Iraq has oil, Saddam has WMD. Not to say that Bush is wrong in doing so, but it just seems too much like:
"Hey, they've got oil right?"
"Yes, Mr. President."
"Lots of it?"
"That's right, Mr. President."
"Alright, and they mst probably have WMD, right?"
"That's affirmative, Mr. President."
"And someone close to them just did a 9/11, right?"
"Y-yes, Mr. President."
"So what are we waiting for! Let's go over there and TAKE that oil!"
"Mr. Presid-"
"Yeah, and we'll install a democratic government and pretend to consult the UN. Then we'll go in and poof! Hello SUVs!"
"Errr. Increase defense spending, too?"
"Yeah! Hell, I'll give ya 27 billion! That enough?"
"Yes SIR!"
"Good. Dismissed."

P.S. - in case you haven't noticed yet, I'm in a caustically sarcastic mood right now.

[SPG]

The republicans of today bear no resemblance to the party of Lincoln. These guys who now call themselves Republicans want only what serves their agenda, no compromise, no representation for any other point of view. They should change the name of the party...I think "Fascist" is available.