PDA

View Full Version : Fidel Castro resigns.



VTAssault
02-19-2008, 01:13 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080219/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/fidel_castro

HAVANA - Fidel Castro, ailing and 81, announced Tuesday he was resigning as Cuba's president, ending a half-century of autocratic rule which made him a communist icon and a relentless opponent of U.S. policy around the globe.
ADVERTISEMENT

The end of Castro's rule " the longest in the world for a head of government " frees his 76-year-old brother Raul Castro to implement reforms he has hinted at since taking over as acting president when Fidel fell ill in July 2006.

President Bush said he hopes the resignation signals the beginning of a democratic transition, though he doubts that would come about under the rule of another Castro. The State Department denigrated the change as a "transfer of authority and power from dictator to dictator light."

I hope this turns out to be a good thing.

halo_99
02-19-2008, 02:15 PM
The world is over.

goodkebab_00
02-19-2008, 02:18 PM
not as good as Bush leaving office. Bush has done more damage to USA in 8 years then anything Castro has done to the US in a lifetime.

ThePheonix1030
02-19-2008, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by goodkebab_00:
not as good as Bush leaving office. Bush has done more damage to USA in 8 years then anything Castro has done to the US in a lifetime.
Um, how do you figure? Castro has massacred thousands of people, not just Cubans. Do you really think that's worse than Bush's so-called 'damage?' Don't forget the Cuban missile crisis <____<


And having Raul take over is gonna make things worse. He's more cold-blooded than Fidel.

Jackie Fiest
02-19-2008, 05:12 PM
There are always going to be people who want everything to be about Bush, even when the article is about Cuba. You will find that no matter where you go.

"The paper says it's gonna rain today."

"z0mg Bu$# 15 t3h 3vi1!!111!111 Th@t pr0v3$ 17!!"

I don't think Castro's leaving office will change anything. For example, Castro was well known for having a good socialized medicine program set up. The people in Cuba are poor at best, so they see a good medical care system and think Castro was a good leader because of that. But what they aren't seeing is how stymied their freedoms are on the whole. Castro would kill anyone there who tried to oppose him, but most people have so little they will go along with him because they are thankful for the few crumbs he throws them to keep them quiet.

savior2006
02-19-2008, 05:18 PM
I actually saw some live footage from Cuba sometime early last year. I saw kids not even in middle school talking about how they would defend their country from U.S. tyranny. Now I joke about Bush being a tyrannt, but of course I don't believe it.
God...why do they (Cuba) hate us so much? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Jackie Fiest
02-19-2008, 05:28 PM
Due to political difference between the two countries, the US doesn't trade or give any assistance or aid of any kind to Cuba. It could be argued that that keeps them somewhat poor, and some of them hate us for that.

Then there is the Bay of Pigs etc. The CIA has tried to be rid of Castro several times.

Also, I'm sure just as "socialism" or "communism" are "dirty words" here in the States, I would guess words associated with us, "Bush", "Democracy", "America" are equally as disdained there.

ThePheonix1030
02-19-2008, 06:07 PM
Oh, Jackie, my friend. Lemme tell you a story...


In case you don't know, I happen to be Cuban, and I have a cousin, Ivan, who was a doctor in Cuba. He went to school for years, studying medicine. Being a doctor, he was only getting paid what janitors get paid here. Sure the medical care is free, but what good does that do to the public when they can't even earn what they should be earning, giving the education they have. Castro is bad all-around. He's rarely, if not, never done something to aid his country. All he cares about is money...


I still luv ya Jackz http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

thejackel21
02-19-2008, 09:07 PM
many people believe that it would open up when he would resign, because his brother is rumored to be sympathetic to america. But, in the end i wouldn't be surprised if castro was just using his brother as his puppet.

goodkebab_00
02-20-2008, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by ThePheonix1030:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by goodkebab_00:
not as good as Bush leaving office. Bush has done more damage to USA in 8 years then anything Castro has done to the US in a lifetime.
Um, how do you figure? Castro has massacred thousands of people, not just Cubans. Do you really think that's worse than Bush's so-called 'damage?' Don't forget the Cuban missile crisis <____<


And having Raul take over is gonna make things worse. He's more cold-blooded than Fidel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually, if you read what i said more closely you may understand what i mean.

I specifically mean that Castro leaving office means little to an american citizen, although Bush leaving office is signficant. I am not comparing them, merely stating that Bush has done more damage to his own country then Castro has ever have done to the USA.

WhiteKnight77
02-20-2008, 05:31 PM
Over the last 50 years especially, most Presidents have done some sort of damage. To single one out is rediculous. One would have to go back some 200+ years to find Presidents who were not wracked by scandals of some sort of another.

ThePheonix1030
02-20-2008, 05:41 PM
Well said. I tend to misunderstand a lot :S

marinius
02-21-2008, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Over the last 50 years especially, most Presidents have done some sort of damage. To single one out is rediculous. One would have to go back some 200+ years to find Presidents who were not wracked by scandals of some sort of another.

How is it ridiculous to point out that Bush jr. has done his own country, and a few other countries as well, a lot of harm? Restrictions of individual freedoms for US citizens, starting wars under false pretenses to name but a couple. US relations with the rest of the world haven't been worse than they are today. Scholars openly discuss Bush as the worst American president ever. You mean to say that this should not be talked about because former presidents weren't perfect?

Jackie Fiest
02-21-2008, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by marinius:
How is it ridiculous to point out that Bush jr. has done his own country, and a few other countries as well, a lot of harm? Restrictions of individual freedoms for US citizens, starting wars under false pretenses to name but a couple. US relations with the rest of the world haven't been worse than they are today. Scholars openly discuss Bush as the worst American president ever. You mean to say that this should not be talked about because former presidents weren't perfect?

First of all, he's not Bush JR. His fathers name is George Herbert Walker Bush and the current President is George Walker Bush. They aren't the same.

And the reason it wouldn't be prudent to say that is because there are two sides to every story. In your opinion, you say Bush "lied". However, I remember watching on TV as Colin Powell stood before the UN presenting information to the Council, including satellite pictures, supplied from several other countries backing up what Bush was saying. Were all those countries lying too? Or is Bush so evil that he is the only one who should be called out for his actions?

Don't Ask Don't Tell was a program laid down by Clinton making discussion of a soldiers private life something taboo instead of just forcing the military to conform to the same civil rights protection laws that US businesses have to follow for years. Is that not harmful...especially in a time of war? Monica Lewinsky? Ring a bell? What about the first time we invaded that area? Anyone else here old enough to remember "Regan-onmics"? Watergate?

To point out Bush and say he is the only "bad" President we have ever had is plain out political bias. A very "straight ticket" comment at best. It also shows a very pigeonholed view of his presidency. What about the college cost reduction act he signed? Or the law that shut down the religious nuts who were protesting outside of military funerals saying things like, "Thank God for 9/11" or "Thank God for IUD's", "God Hates Homosexuals". I guess that those are just two more examples of some evil laws by an evil man, huh?

For every, what you call, "political scholar" that will say Bush is the worst President in American history, there are others that will tell you that he isn't. These opinions are easily bought.

America had never faced a terrorist attack on our own soil the way we did on 9/11. Bush had the weight of 3000+ of his own citizens on his head. No matter what he did in response, someone was going to disagree with him. It was inevitable he was going to be attacked. I, in no way, agree with everything he has done, but, he has stood his ground and done what he thought was best for his country and his people. Any other president would be dealing with the same **** Bush is dealing with. That doesn't make him a bad leader. If you want to use the opinion of 50 scholars that says he's bad. Fine. I will find you 500 that says he's good. Does that make it so? The fact that the situation in Iraq isn't over yet, should show that time will indeed show the legitimacy of this presidency. To make a judgment now would be premature.

Bob_Bobber0
02-21-2008, 12:24 PM
I remember reading about when the U.S. told Castro we would take refugees, so he was like ok and emptied out all his prisons and insane asylums and sent them to the U.S.

lol pwned.

VTAssault
02-21-2008, 12:46 PM
Jackie, Bush did start an Unjust war on Iraq (not afghanistan). He did make A LOT OF MISTAKES, the thing is though that we cant do anything about it right now. No matter how much we protest and complain we cant get him impeached.

So what does that leave us? Protesting and Complaining. Its just a by product of a unsatisfied nation. Peoples minds shift, and what was once ok isnt anymore.

Why do you think Barrack/Clinton are winning so hard right now compared to the Republicans.

Because people thought the republicans made a mess of things. Which they did, and in 30 years no one is going to remember most of them.

thejackel21
02-21-2008, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Bob_Bobber0:
I remember reading about when the U.S. told Castro we would take refugees, so he was like ok and emptied out all his prisons and insane asylums and sent them to the U.S.

lol pwned.

no actually 20-35% were from prisons/insne asylums. And most of the prisoners were sent away to PR and mexico.

Jackie Fiest
02-21-2008, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Bob_Bobber0:
I remember reading about when the U.S. told Castro we would take refugees, so he was like ok and emptied out all his prisons and insane asylums and sent them to the U.S.

lol pwned.

Absolutely did not happen. They never came here. They ended up scattered all over latin South American area.


Originally posted by TheJackel21:
no actually 20-35% were from prisons/insne asylums. And most of the prisoners were sent away to PR and mexico.

lol oops. Yea what he said. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

WhiteKnight77
02-21-2008, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by VTAssault:
Jackie, Bush did start an Unjust war on Iraq (not afghanistan). He did make A LOT OF MISTAKES, the thing is though that we cant do anything about it right now. No matter how much we protest and complain we cant get him impeached.

So what does that leave us? Protesting and Complaining. Its just a by product of a unsatisfied nation. Peoples minds shift, and what was once ok isnt anymore.

Why do you think Barrack/Clinton are winning so hard right now compared to the Republicans.

Because people thought the republicans made a mess of things. Which they did, and in 30 years no one is going to remember most of them.

How was it decided that Iraqi Freedom is an unjust war? Who made that determination? Which court ruled as such?

For 12 years, Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at the UN and the rest of the world with his sleight of hand. The world knows that he had and used chemical weapons and was trying to buy weapons that could launch artillery shells (most likely topped with chemical weapons) that could hit Israel (look up the Super Gun).

Bush did what his Dad wouldn't do, help those who would uprise against Saddam to overthrow him (my opinion and not fact). It has been done in the past with the CIA's help in other countries under other Presidents (study a bit more and you will see why I said no President in the last 50 years is a "good" President). WMD were found in Iraq after 2003 (but the media barely acknowledged that fact, go figure, they have been trying to vilify Bush from the get to, yet had a hard time comprehending why Clinton should have been impeached and complained about it).

As for Obama and Clinton appearing to pull ahead, its simple. The media with the exception of one media outlet, is a bastion of liberalism and will pay more lip service for liberal candidates over conservative ones (see above). Just today The New York Times printed an article that claims that McCain had an improper relationship with a lobbyist. This is the same paper that revealed ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the world. You need to take everything you read in the paper or see on the evening news with a grain of salt.

It is now 40 years since Kennedy was President, but the Bay of Pigs invasion is still brought up (in this thread twice now). It is well known that and remembered that Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam, a war my Pops spent 18 months in that John Kerry left after 4 and who called my Pops a baby killer even though he was a REMF. Do I need to go on?

Right now, how a President is preceived is irrelevant, it's how history views him in the future. Everyone has an opinion about now, but it doesn't really matter.

Jackie Fiest
02-21-2008, 05:43 PM
I have to agree with WK on a few issues.

#1 If you are basing the publics perception on things on the media then you are getting tainted information. I agree that most of the media is liberal, but I also agree that there is some news, mainly talk radio, that is conservative. Most news outlets have their own agenda. You will get the true feel for the people want from the election.

#2 The idea of the War in Iraq being "right" or "wrong" is only an opinion. There is no way to make that factual. And I'm not convinced we did the wrong thing there. People want to get upset over the Amerians who have died, and I can understand that. But, how quickly people have forgotten all the people Saddam gassed to death. No one in the area would have stood up to him because they were afraid to. And you will find, that it is the same people who say that we are should "mind our own business" as far as Iraq is concerned will usually turn around in the same breath and say "...why don't we help those in Darfur?"

...well either we mind our own business or we don't. The fact of the matter is a lot of people just want to demonize Bush either way. He's wrong because he did the wrong thing in Iraq. But they also on the other hand have all these ideas there they think he should have interjected the military. People aren't mad because he acted, they are mad because he didn't act in the way they wanted. But, as long as he's President...and has access to classified info that none of us do, he will still be calling the shots.

I mean, does anyone really think people are going to just *love* the next president? Nope. The next one will get attacked too. It just comes with the job, and I think Bush knows that.

WhiteKnight77
02-21-2008, 05:52 PM
LOL. The fact that talk radio is a bastion of conservatism rubs the liberals the wrong way yet they don't complain of the fact that TV and newspapers are typically liberal. Go figure. Yes, I know that conservatives have a deep seated distrust of the liberal media too.

VTAssault
02-21-2008, 06:45 PM
I apologize, I apparently looked up the JUST WAR DOCTRINE on a site that had it wrong.

Still we did go in for a specific reason (WMD's) and, I know this is the most common and overused arguement ever, but that doesnt make it any less true.

And the other overused arguement is....

Bush is just a puppet for a multinational syndicate bent on world domination.

thejackel21
02-21-2008, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by VTAssault:

And the other overused arguement is....

Bush is just a puppet for Richard "****" Cheney .

there I corrected it for you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

VTAssault
02-21-2008, 09:41 PM
No Cheney is just the long arm of the Multinational syndicate bent of world domination (thats the name, MSBoWD)

marinius
02-22-2008, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by TFS_Jackie:
First of all, he's not Bush JR. His fathers name is George Herbert Walker Bush and the current President is George Walker Bush. They aren't the same.

He is George Bush, son of George Bush. That makes him Bush jr. to me. However, this is rather irrelevant bickering and hardly worth arguing about.


Originally posted by TFS_Jackie: And the reason it wouldn't be prudent to say that is because there are two sides to every story. In your opinion, you say Bush "lied". However, I remember watching on TV as Colin Powell stood before the UN presenting information to the Council, including satellite pictures, supplied from several other countries backing up what Bush was saying. Were all those countries lying too? Or is Bush so evil that he is the only one who should be called out for his actions?

Hmm. I think you need to re-read my post. I didn't say Bush was evil. I don't believe he is to be honest. I think he quite often serves interests other than the American people's. That is, shall we say wrong, but not necessarily evil as such...The Iraq war was started under false pretenses. The UN weapons inspectors clearly stated there were no signs of WMD, yet American authorities forcefully claimed there were. Now, did anyone find any such weapon?


Originally posted by TFS_Jackie: Don't Ask Don't Tell was a program laid down by Clinton making discussion of a soldiers private life something taboo instead of just forcing the military to conform to the same civil rights protection laws that US businesses have to follow for years. Is that not harmful...especially in a time of war? Monica Lewinsky? Ring a bell? What about the first time we invaded that area? Anyone else here old enough to remember "Regan-onmics"? Watergate?

To point out Bush and say he is the only "bad" President we have ever had is plain out political bias. A very "straight ticket" comment at best. It also shows a very pigeonholed view of his presidency. What about the college cost reduction act he signed? Or the law that shut down the religious nuts who were protesting outside of military funerals saying things like, "Thank God for 9/11" or "Thank God for IUD's", "God Hates Homosexuals". I guess that those are just two more examples of some evil laws by an evil man, huh?

Again, I never said Bush is the only "bad" president, far from it. If you read my post, which you really seem not to have done very closely, I wrote simply that there is nothing ridiculous about pointing out the many unfortunate things concerning the Bush presidency simply because a lot of other presidents have gone wrong as well. To mention Monica Lewinsky in this context with so many serious issues, well that's just ludicrous.


Originally posted by TFS_Jackie: For every, what you call, "political scholar" that will say Bush is the worst President in American history, there are others that will tell you that he isn't. These opinions are easily bought.

Perhaps they are in the US, I don't know. I'm European and I'm referring to what I've read by highly regarded scholars at prestigious universities who aren't in the habit of selling their opinions to the highest bidder. I do agree that the merits of the Bush presidency are matters of opinion and as such open to debate.

Georg_Maximus
02-22-2008, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by TFS_Jackie:
#2 The idea of the War in Iraq being "right" or "wrong" is only an opinion. There is no way to make that factual.
Ah, well, yes, in fact there is. According to international law, invading a souvereign state without any prior provocations is illegal. The UN is an upholder of that law, and the US invasion was illegal because a) Iraq had nothing to do with 911, and b) the UN didn't condone it. Why do you think the US went through all that hazzle with forging evidence and lying about intelligence reports, if not for getting the UN to join it's cause?

And not to mention the fact that millions of iraqi lives has been ruined because the US ignored the entire UN weapons inspection team.

And I'm not convinced we did the wrong thing there. People want to get upset over the Amerians who have died, and I can understand that. But, how quickly people have forgotten all the people Saddam gassed to death.
The invasion of Iraq was never about the people of Iraq, much less about the kurds. Even today the US accepts turkish raids against kurdish strongholds in northern Iraq, the very same people that opposed Saddam's rule. The US are finding themselves in a situation where they are fighting Saddam's battles, and, as Abu Ghraib showed us, with the same means. Like it or not: Bush is the new Saddam.

But, as long as he's President...and has access to classified info that none of us do, he will still be calling the shots.
What classified info? WMDs in Iraq? Uranium from Nigeria? That kind of info?

Jackie Fiest
02-22-2008, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Georg_Maximus:
Ah, well, yes, in fact there is. According to international law, invading a souvereign state without any prior provocations is illegal. The UN is an upholder of that law, and the US invasion was illegal because a) Iraq had nothing to do with 911, and b) the UN didn't condone it. Why do you think the US went through all that hazzle with forging evidence and lying about intelligence reports, if not for getting the UN to join it's cause?

ROTFLOL@The UN.

Ok first of all, what the United Nations says does not equal fact. Not even close. If everyone in the UN got together and decided the sky is green, it doesn't make it so.

But, the United Nations is nothing more than a pathetic tired old body that can't even serve it's own purposes.

It couldn't force Saddam Hussein to let weapons inspectors into his country for yyyeeeaaarrss and also couldn't keep the US from going in so the UN is pretty much useless. Also, anyone who relies on Kofi Annon for their moral leadership in anything is extremely misguided.I mean yes, I want Bush to look to a man with sexual harassment and taking money meant for the Iraqi people in the oil for food program for advice. Umm..no kthnxbi.

Also, I will repeat what I said before, to say that the US lied and made up info is outright bias without fact. Let's say it was all the evidence was made up, a good chunk of that evidence came from Italy, Russia, Germany, France etc...but everyone just wants to point their finger at America. Until, they get hit with some huge natural disaster or their economy tanks, then all of a sudden they become a bit more responsive.

Also, the whole thing about Bush being as bad as Saddam is also, just an individual opinion. Anyone with a mind that works is free to come up with their own opinion of the War, the president etc...

And as far as "What classified info?" That's kind of what makes it classified. We don't know what it is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

lochang19
02-22-2008, 09:22 PM
This thread is filled with idealogue's.

The basic facts are these:

1) After 9/11, with 3,000 Americans dead, GWB was told that Iraq had WMD's and a potential connection to AQ. Bad combo.

2) The world runs on oil. The world needs oil-rich areas of the world to be stable. Iraq was the most unstable influence (at the time) in the middle east.

3) The United States made enormous mistakes in Iraq, the primary three being, a) didn't send nearly enough troops (standard military doctrine put the ideal figure around 600,000 for an occupying force in a country that large) b) didn't take out the crazies like Moqtada al-Sadr on day one c) disbanded the Iraqi military, which could have provided the manpower needed to help secure the country from the get-go.

4) Since then, however, especially in the last year, the country has gotten a great deal more stable.

Both sides in this thread have valid points. As much as I feel removing Saddam was a good enough reason to invade, it wasn't sold the the American people as such. It was sold to us as being about WMD's, which was validly pointed out as being from SEVERAL countries, including the impotent UN. Though as any clear thinking person can say, none were found, at least not to the extent to which we were led to believe. Again, though, the entire world's intelligence apparatus said the same thing.

However, the war was as much about oil as it was about anything else. You're crazy to think that Iraq, being the fourth largest producer of oil in the world was just conveniently picked as the target because, well, we just didn't like Saddam and his gasses and poisons. It was picked because, next to Iran, which is geographically impossible to invade/occupy, it was a piece of cake with fantastic potential.

Iraq is and will continue to be a success story, but it's a story about securing energy needs in the long term, as well as having an enormous foothold in a region that's been a problem for the world, and primarily America, for the last 40 years.

ThePheonix1030
02-23-2008, 09:23 PM
Fidel Castro is the devil. THE END http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Georg_Maximus
02-25-2008, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by TFS_Jackie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Georg_Maximus:
Ah, well, yes, in fact there is. According to international law, invading a souvereign state without any prior provocations is illegal. The UN is an upholder of that law, and the US invasion was illegal because a) Iraq had nothing to do with 911, and b) the UN didn't condone it. Why do you think the US went through all that hazzle with forging evidence and lying about intelligence reports, if not for getting the UN to join it's cause?

ROTFLOL@The UN.

Ok first of all, what the United Nations says does not equal fact. Not even close. If everyone in the UN got together and decided the sky is green, it doesn't make it so.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
First: Say what you may about the UN, but as of today, it's the only body that represents international legislation and jurisprudence. You don't need to like it, but invading a souvereign state without its acceptance is, by definition, a crime. Second: in the case of Bush vs Iraq, it wasn't the UN that claimed that the sky was green. Go figure.


But, the United Nations is nothing more than a pathetic tired old body that can't even serve it's own purposes.

On of the reasons why it's pathetic is because each of the the security council member states has the right to veto any decisions, a right that the US has used extensively over the decades.


It couldn't force Saddam Hussein to let weapons inspectors into his country for yyyeeeaaarrss and also couldn't keep the US from going in so the UN is pretty much useless.

Well, that shows just how informed you are. The UN did indeed have weapons inspectors on site, but the Bush administration wouldn't let them finish the job. And it's true that the UN couldn't stop US from invading Iraq, but that's not the UN's office to do. The UN has the power to judge in international conflicts, but it's outside their mandate to do the police work. That is up to the member states, so it's the US that failed its duty.


Also, anyone who relies on Kofi Annon for their moral leadership in anything is extremely misguided.I mean yes, I want Bush to look to a man with sexual harassment and taking money meant for the Iraqi people in the oil for food program for advice. Umm..no kthnxbi.

The US smear campaign after Annan failed to submit to the US scam, and you're buying all of it. Good work!


Also, I will repeat what I said before, to say that the US lied and made up info is outright bias without fact.

Does Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame ring any bells?


Let's say it was all the evidence was made up, a good chunk of that evidence came from Italy, Russia, Germany, France etc...but everyone just wants to point their finger at America. Until, they get hit with some huge natural disaster or their economy tanks, then all of a sudden they become a bit more responsive.

Russia, Germany, France etc. didn't invade Iraq, did they? So why do you think everyone points their finger at the US?


Also, the whole thing about Bush being as bad as Saddam is also, just an individual opinion. Anyone with a mind that works is free to come up with their own opinion of the War, the president etc...

Yep - the rest just watch Fox news.


And as far as "What classified info?" That's kind of what makes it classified. We don't know what it is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
If your neighbourhood is pounded by 2000 pound bombs, eradicating and maiming the entire population of children, siblings and parents, then just maybe dismissing it with a "a guess they had their reasons" is a tad too easy? The thing with democracies is the transparency of its decisions. An elected leader rules by the power of the people, and the people has *the right* to have full information access. If you accept that your leader can go on a slaughter rampage in your name and not even ask why, then what good is calling your society a democracy?

ThePheonix1030
02-25-2008, 03:32 PM
Uh, isn't this topic about Castro's resignation? All I see is Saddam, UN, USA, blah blah blah...

WhiteKnight77
02-25-2008, 04:17 PM
I will tell you why Germany and France didn't want to help in Iraqi Freedom, they had sold banned items to Iraq throughout the whole sanction period from 1990-2003. A certain Green Beret that frequents Ubi forums around here found many instances of banned items during operations over there.

You are also off base on whether inspectors were allowed to do their job. Saddam had them held at the front gate to compounds while trucking items out the back gate. There are pics of that going on. Remember too, that Saddam sent the first batch of inspectors out of the country. That was during the Clinton administration, not Bush's. Bush may have told the second batch of inspectors to get out, but not the first.

Georg_Maximus
02-26-2008, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
I will tell you why Germany and France didn't want to help in Iraqi Freedom, they had sold banned items to Iraq throughout the whole sanction period from 1990-2003. A certain Green Beret that frequents Ubi forums around here found many instances of banned items during operations over there.
That's not really the reason. Companies from dozens of countries around the globe was involved in violating the sanctions against Iraq, among them companies from the US and it's allies. The reason why countries like France and Germany did not want to go to war, was because every intelligent creature in the world foresaw the catastrophy that's been unfolding in the recent years in Iraq. I'm not saying France and Germany are the good guys, but they were at least smart enough to listen to what the analysts said.

You are also off base on whether inspectors were allowed to do their job. Saddam had them held at the front gate to compounds while trucking items out the back gate. There are pics of that going on. Remember too, that Saddam sent the first batch of inspectors out of the country. That was during the Clinton administration, not Bush's. Bush may have told the second batch of inspectors to get out, but not the first.
The first batch of inspectors were led by the US. Naturally, Iraq resisted inspections by the same country that had attacked it after the Kuwait invasion. Would the US allow an iranian to inspect US weapons facilities? It was only when Hans Blix took office as head of the inspections team that Iraq cooperated, but the US was not interested in an unbiased team. They attacked when they did because the team was about to find out that the whole WMD claim was false.