creepindeth04
Moderator
SpartanEvolved said:
Ill look up the term for you. I cant seem to remember it off the top of my head.
Canadian Politics
Ill look up the term for you. I cant seem to remember it off the top of my head.
I believe recalling an elected official is the dumbest thing to be allowed.
As for impeachment, yes. It is very possible. But you have to first accuse the president of commiting a crime. And what crime would that be?? In Clinton's case, he lied under oath. And if there was a crime, you must have the House vote to try him. You then have a trial. And if found guilty, the Senate must vote to remove him from office. If he is found guilty and is not removed, then he finishes his term as if nothing happened. and if a president is ever convicted and sentenced to do any time, chances are his Vive President would pardon him.
Now, back to Canadian Politics!!!
As for impeachment, yes. It is very possible. But you have to first accuse the president of commiting a crime. And what crime would that be?? In Clinton's case, he lied under oath. And if there was a crime, you must have the House vote to try him. You then have a trial. And if found guilty, the Senate must vote to remove him from office. If he is found guilty and is not removed, then he finishes his term as if nothing happened. and if a president is ever convicted and sentenced to do any time, chances are his Vive President would pardon him.
Now, back to Canadian Politics!!!
SpartanEvolved
SpartanEvolved
So, is Arnie not the best governor on Earth? I'm not surprised, really. No offense to Californians, but choosing Arnold to replace Gray Davis wasn't very smart. The guy became famous because he is a bodybuilder/action movie star, not because of his political prowess.
creepindeth04
Moderator
SpartanEvolved said:
:lol I know I keep bringing this up but dont associate all californians as the ones who voted him in. As a matter of fact the whole recall and election was a joke. Nobody on the ballets was worthy of running California. I sure didnt vote for him. I cant even remember the person I voted for but I do know that he was more qualified than Arnold.
Dart said:
Agreed. But unfortunately I dont know much about them.
stealth toilet
Moderator
Hey man, it's your mess, not ours. We tried to tell you guys it wasn't gonna be easy, now that you didn't listen you've got to lie in the bed you've made. As far as I know Iraq didn't need cleaning up before you sent your troops in there, and I don't see how keeping armed soldiers there is going to help Iraq in the least.
Conspiracies are too convenient an excuse. If we start talking conspiracy theories then its easy to say that anyone who disagrees is simply "in on it." The UN did not support the war because there was no reason to. There was no actual proof of Saddam threatening any other nation with WMD's or anything like that. It was an unjust war, at least in the eyes of every country except for America. It was not a conspiracy that every country but the US was in on, there was just no cause to support it.
And how long did America sell munitions to Iraq before then, a decade, maybe more? Pretty coincidental for America to support a ban the selling of all weapons to Iraq once they made a killing off doing just that, wouldn't you say?
Unless you're a major part of the oil industry, you probably never will. Why would they lower oil prices when you're perfectly content paying the price you currently do? All it would do would strengthen the arguement thatthe war was all just for oil. So, while the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and Bush's role as president is complete.
Perhaps they're ensuring a "democratic government," that just so happens to love trading oil with America, is set up before they leave. Then they won't have to come up with some BS story for going in there and forcibly taking it again. It's funny you should say:
And then paint a picture of a warm, fuzzy, good intentioned America. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but when you make such generalizations based on very little personal experience or evidence, it makes me wonder how your opinions are formed. Why would you defend so earnestly the image of America and try to taint the images of the UN, and other states? Do you deny that there is corruption in America, greed, deceit? Do you really believe the war is that innocent?
Why would it be our responsibility to clean up your mess? Should we bail you guys out every time you do something that we disagree with, and it ends up blowing up in your face? Sorry buddy, but you went into this war on your own, and you're gonna have to get yourselves out.
Oh and I know flat out we probably won't agree, I'm just pretty much stating my side of things, more or less saying "do you see the possibility that this is how it could be?" I just find it a little odd that the one opressed country in the world that America decides to "bring liberty to" is also a country that contains one of the largest oil resevoirs in the world.
Ya know, I never even knew of the word "hoser" until I saw some Americans making fun of Canadians on TV, lol. I didn't even get the joke, because no one here says that, ever. Admittedly we do say "eh" a lot, well, not a lot, and mostly just the older generations. The newer generation seems to say "hey" at the end of the occasional sentence, like "Check out this new game, it's pretty cool hey?" or something like that, I'm not really sure. Other than that Canadians and Americans are practically the same, lol.
Well, this is a double edged sword right here. That's fine that your country or any other country for that matter doesn't want to help. It's your right. And you are also right that it isn't your mess. But the comment nullifies your blame. Don't want to help?? That's okay. That means your blame games will fall on deaf ears.
Allies change. Ever wonder why the U.S and the Soviet Union squared off in the Cold War not long after they were allies during World War II?? During the 80s, the U.S was squared off with Iran after their Revolution. And oddly enough Iraq was at odds with them. It would have been foolish for the U.S to enter into a direct conflict with Iran during that time, as it would have set off a firestorm within that region. So the next best thing was to supply Iraq with weapons and let them bleed eachother to death during the Iran/Iraq War. When the war ended, so did the sale of weapons to Iraq. Now speed up to the early 90s, when Saddam was getting big headed. They invade Kuwait. The U.S declares war on Iraq and drives them back. Now do you think the U.S would sell a direct enemy weapons?? So yes, the U.S did support the ban on the sale of weapons. A real no-brainer.
Not a conspiracy theory. Fact. Cold hard fact. And yes, too convenient. Especially when the U.S was going after the UN's cash cow. The UN lost all of their integrity when that happened. Their name was tainted. But it's not a huge deal considering most Americans think that the UN is a complete joke. It was Roosevelt's brainchild. But it has outgrown it's suefullness and should be terminated. Maybe they can get their butts out of New York and Canada can have them instead!! :lol
I seriously hope that you caught my joke. And that you replied in jest... :-\
stealth toilet
Moderator
Yes I did, hence the "lol's" in my post. But seriously, the first time I heard the word hoser, was from an American. :lol
I said what I did in response to your asking for other countries to help out. I was simply saying, don't expect help from countries that have been telling you all along not to go to war, even if you suddenly realize you're in over your head.
I was just saying, it's funny how when America sells Iraq weapons everything's cool, but when other countries start doing it right away it's questionable. There was no "big-time no no" for the UN to cover up because America had sold just as many weapons to Iraq as other countries had. If anyone pointed the finger at France for selling them planes they could point the finger at America for selling them guns.
That's some good foreign policy right there...
Well if we're both going to make up facts, then I'm going to tell you my theory, err, factual knowledge of why America went into Iraq, despite UN dissaproval. Fact 1) America wants oil. Fact 2) Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) didn't like America, and wasn't willing to trade oil to them. Fact 3) America sees 9/11 as an opportunity the get the world to support their invasion of Iraq, and subsequently get their oil. Fact 4) the UN sees through the American allegations of Saddam holding WMD's, and posing a threat to America, after doing their own numerous searches and finding nothing. Fact 5) America says screw it, we don't need world approval, we're going in anyway. Fact 6) They institute a new government (willing to practically give America their oil) under the guise of bringing democracy to Iraq.
Obviously none of those are facts, but neither is the "fact" that Iraq was "lining the pockets of UN officials." It's pure conjecture, and my facts are just as plausible as yours. In my opinion, more so, because they come from relatively unbiased sources. America is obviously saturizing the media with propaganda to justify the war to it's citizens. Even if some of it is true it's incredibly hard to separate fact from fiction. Just don't be misled by journalism that has an agenda.
In no way did I ever say that the U.S was in over our heads. After all, the U.S spends the most on defense. That means we attempt to have the best weapons and the best training. All I meant in saying for other countries to help was to shorten the stay of a standing foreign army in Iraq. Not because we think we are in over our heads. But like I said. The world community has every right to sit on their hands and do nothing but complain. It's what always happens. And it is what the U.S typically expects. :
It seems you missed the whole meaning of what I said, and are now side-stepping the issue to build your case. Are you a ploitician? :lol It is extremely simple. The U.S sold weapons in the 1980s. France and Germany sold weapons between 2000 and 2004. the ban was from from, what, 1992 to present?? See now what I mean?? France and Germany sold weapons during the ban. But I guess the U.S shouldn't have a problem being that we sold Iraq weapons almost 20 years ago. Do as I say, not as I do?? I think so!!
As opposed to, what, nothing at all?? See, the biggest difference in foreign policy between the U.S and Canada is the U.S actually does something. It may not be the right thing 100% of the time. But at least we will do something when there is a country in need. Inaction is the single worst thing you can do in this world. It gains zero respect and there is no honor in it. But it's your country's right to do nothing.
And as far as the whole UN scandal. I guess since some people think the Holocaust never happened, it's safe to say that there are people who don't believe that the UN could possibly betray the world's trust. I dare you to Google it. Find out for yourself. But I am sure it won't do anything to calm your seething hatred you harbor for the U.S.
And here's the bottom line. I don't care one bit what Canada's government or Canadians think about the U.S. Don't like us?? Big deal. Don't visit. Out of sight, out of mind. Do what you do best. Care only for your borders and screw the world if you think that's honorable. The U.S will continue to fix Iraq. The world will keep running as usual.
Oh, and I wasn't kidding when I said that Canada can have the UN. We'll watch your country go bankrupt trying to keep it running.
creepindeth04
Moderator
Dart said:
Whoa there Dart. In no way did I get seething hatred from Stealth. I dont know where you got that from. Let's try not to get too personal than it already is.
As for doing nothing at all. What makes you think that we have to always be in action? What makes you think that the only other option is to do nothing at all? Sure there are some things that you just cant avoid and have to fight but do we have to be involved in everything? This is a planet that is inhabited by many people, civilizations, countries, etc. We dont have to be involved in everything. This planet does not belong to one single country or entity. People have different beliefs, different ways of living. Who are we to try and change them? We have a lot more important problems in our own borders at the moment that there should have been no need to invade Iraq when we did. Maybe at a later date, but not now. I dont get why you seem to think that other countries not wanting to participate is a bad choice. I really dont. As if this country is always innocent.
Edit: Im done. It's beginning to get a little personal. So let's watch what we say. No need to have this end up hating each other.
The US is asked by many countries for help. We, of course go in to help them, make enemies with another country, and next thing you have is hostility. There's no way the US is ever going to be perfect in anyone's eyes.
Not arguing against anyone or anything, and not replying to anyone. Just adding my 2 cents. :lol
Not arguing against anyone or anything, and not replying to anyone. Just adding my 2 cents. :lol
creepindeth04
Moderator
Strubes said:
No country is perfect. The reason there is so much hostility is because the war seems unnecessary at the moment. We just had the worst attack on American soil happen and what do we do? Start bombing Iraq. What happened to Osama Bin Laden? What happened to taking out Al-queda, who are still bombin other countries now. Plus I dont recall hearing Iraqi citizens ask for help. Like Ive said before we have our own problems in our own borders that I feel should have been taken care of first. We also should be taking care of Al-queda. Why is Iraq ahead of those agendas?
creepindeth04
Moderator
Strubes said:
Are you sure? If anything this war is costing us a lot of money that could have gone to make a better search and take out Al-Queda. Sure they praised us, but was it necessary at the moment? I dont think so. There are other countries that need help just as bad. Why start with Iraq?
creepindeth04
Moderator
Strubes said:
Im sure there are some searches but we should be fully focused on that rather than this war. Well you didn't really answer my question but Ill answer yours. First of all like I said, they didnt ask for our help. We should be coming up with alternative fuels rather than trying to get oil from the middle east. Which I sill believe is one of the main reasons why we're there. They havent necessarily done anything to us to warrant an attack at this time. Plus we could have started by helping out our neighbor countries so that we wouldn't have such major immigration and job outsourcing problems. We should have started with ourselves then to our neighboring countries.