President Bush's Speech

[gear02]

I'm curious what you G|A? people think about it.

[CornMonkey]

i like bush. he makes me laugh.

[sleepminded]

Originally posted by gear02
I'm curious what you G|A? people think about it.

i didnt hear it...

[gear02]

Hmm...I guess it wasn't a big deal...NBC, ABC, and CBS didn't show it. I think FOX was the only one to do it.

It was interesting, but I don't think it was very substantive...more of a coaches' pregame speech...

[irwin]

I overheard from a classmate in history that Bush was asked, "Why aren't there any arabs in the Star Trek series?"

To that he replied, "Because it's in the future."

I dunno if it's true though.

[Showtime]

What was the point? He didnt even declare war.

He got a lot of applause, but thats just like heading out to a fight and watching someone who isnt going to fight egg on the combatant.

OK, I see now. Get somemore support first.

Whatever

-jel:halo:

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by passwird
I overheard from a classmate in history that Bush was asked, "Why aren't there any arabs in the Star Trek series?"

To that he replied, "Because it's in the future."

I dunno if it's true though.

http://communism.net/burzhui/Smileys/lol3.gif hehehe that's funny

[Nija]

i wanted to hear it, but I was at the laundry mat, and the mariachi music was blaring :rolleyes:

[WhiskeyPapa]

I listened to it on the radio. I thought it was good, but I lost count how many times he said "new-cue-ler"...

[gear02]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
I listened to it on the radio. I thought it was good, but I lost count how many times he said "new-cue-ler"...

haha! yeah...that was great. Every time he said that I would go <Homer>It's Nucular</Homer>

[blueindian]

i think it sucked. bush offered no new information, and no proof for the alegations he has made against iraq in recent weeks. according to our FBI and CIA, there is no link between bin laden and iraq. according to numerous world authorities, iraq poses no threat to the US. the bush administration is using the war on terror and the "threat from iraq" to promote it's own agenda of controlling the natural resources in the middel east.

funny comic that pretty much sums it up:
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/09/09/tomo/index.html

[ribitch]

i want to see some
http://wso.williams.edu/~mhacker/Strangelove/mushroom.gif

coming from Iraq.

I support Bush in his effort to finish what should have been done long ago. We cannot keep stalling until Iraq does something because by then it will be too late.

I admit Bush does make me laugh, and he is a horrid speaker (or his speech writer needs to be beat with a rubber hose), but it shows that he is human just like every one of us.

Invasion of Iraq is almost inevitable. We need to support our troops and stand together as a nation. We cannot be a split nation when the time does come.

[blueindian]

Invasion of Iraq is almost inevitable. We need to support our troops and stand together as a nation. We cannot be a split nation when the time does come.

<sarcasm>yes, and let's make damn sure we kill all the women and children! all the children grow up to be terrorists and the women just reproduce to make more little terrorists</sarcasm>

[Cantacuzene]

I've been against the invasion of Iraq the whole time, as everyone knows, but recently I've been thinking it over and I think its in our interest to do.

However, I also think if we are going to invade Iraq we should also be prepared to invade Iran, Sudan and any other fundamentalist militant islamic country.

[gear02]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I've been against the invasion of Iraq the whole time, as everyone knows, but recently I've been thinking it over and I think its in our interest to do.

However, I also think if we are going to invade Iraq we should also be prepared to invade Iran, Sudan and any other fundamentalist militant islamic country.

I think I'm also against this whole thing as long as we don't have support from the international community. I mean, even our long time allies don't support us on this one (Germany, France, Russia etc.)

It also stirs up the Middle East at a time where a small firecracker can light up the entire region. Either cool the area down, possibly even creating a Palestinian state, or provide SOLID evidence to the world.

And btw evidence means FACTS, not just statements like Bush did during the whole speech. I kept thinking that there are secrets he does not want to reveal, but when everyone demands evidence and all you can come up with are statements, it doesn't increase out reputibility. I think they should have declassified some of their information and give it to the world.

We really can't expect to say "Let's bomb Iraq" and expect others to follow mindlessly.

Edit: Oh and btw does anyone think bombing Iraq will do anything? Saddam just lets his people starve. He gets to live in a palace.

Edit #2: Another thing, if we provide good solid evidence, then I think even China, Iran, and other middle east countries would join in. They don't like Iraq more than we do, but they don't like the idea of us attacking people we don't like, because sooner or later we might not like them.

[Cantacuzene]

A few problems with your arguement Gear. Up until a few days ago I believed the exact same as you but I thought about a few things.

First our "allies" are irrelevent. American policy is made by Americans for Americans. We do what is in the best interest of our country, period. If it just so happens to be pleasing to the rest of the world then good for them, but we dont need their consent to do anything.

Second, terrorism and militant islam wont be stopped by "letting the area cool down." The terrorists coming out of Sudan dont give a rats ass about Palestine, they have their own issues. The terrorists from Indonesia dont give a damn about Palestine, they have their own issues. Even if the Palestine/Israel issue was settled tommorow, militant islam would still be here. Each so called "reason" for the terrorist action is just a false pretext to help justify the actions they would have taken anyway.

The whole terrorist thing isnt about any real issues in particular, its about an ideology and the only way we can stop the ideology is by showing that the path to sucess does not lie in militant islam. We have to send the message to the hardliner islamic fundamentalists that only through moderate, peaceful islam will they be fruitful and that militantism is a dead end path.

[kimchicowboy]

Originally posted by blueindian
the bush administration is using the war on terror and the "threat from iraq" to promote it's own agenda of controlling the natural resources in the middel east.
i thorougly disagree with this statement. Bush has stated in the past that he wants to be FREE of being dependent on FOREIGN oil. that's why he's interested in opening up ANWR (alaska national wildlife refuge) for drilling.

on a side note, i bet that there's a lot about this that we don't know. so to be pro-war or anti-war is based upon a lot of speculation about Iraq's capabilities. either we can agree that Iraq certainly has the ability to make nuclear weapons in the near future, harbors and encourages terrorism, and that saddam hussein is a crazy dictator who will do anything to stay in power, or we can just assume that these things are false and hope that nothing bad happens to us.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by gear02
I mean, even our long time allies don't support us on this one (Germany, France, Russia etc.)

Hold on... Let me look up "long time"... :hihi:

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by gear02
they don't like the idea of us attacking people we don't like, because sooner or later we might not like them. DING DING DING DING!! You win a prize!

You just summed up the main reason we should attack Iraq. By defeating the totalitarian regime in a relatively easy-to-beat Iraq, we are sending a HUGE message to nations like China.

That's the reason we fought in South Korea in the 50s. It wasn't because we loved the South Koreans so much, it was a message to China and the Soviet Union. It's called a Proxy War. That's the same reason the Soviets invaded Hungary in 1956... to send a message to us.

[blueindian]

i thorougly disagree with this statement. Bush has stated in the past that he wants to be FREE of being dependent on FOREIGN oil. that's why he's interested in opening up ANWR (alaska national wildlife refuge) for drilling.

bush only says that in an attempt to passify environmentalists who are pissed about the fact that he attempted to open the ANWR for drilling. the real reason he wants to open it is to make his oil buddies happy. it's no secret that tons of his friends and campaign contributors are in the oil business. do some research on the UNOCOL oil and naturl gas pipelines that were to runj from Turkeministan to Pakistan via Afghanistan. Clinton stopped the project when the taliban took control of Afghanistan. Now that Hamid Karzai is president, the pipeline project has started again. Funny thing is Hamid Karzai was a consultant to UNOCOL when the project first started.



First our "allies" are irrelevent. American policy is made by Americans for Americans. We do what is in the best interest of our country, period. If it just so happens to be pleasing to the rest of the world then good for them, but we dont need their consent to do anything.

that is exactly the type of attitude that causes other countries to bet majorly pissed at us. if were to continue for the next 200 years making foreign policy with absolutly no concern for our allies, we would no longer have allies. when meddeling in the affairs of other countries, we have to take into consideration what the rest of the world, particularly the permanent members of the UNSC, have to say.

[Cantacuzene]

Ummmm, why do we care if countries are pissed at us? Granted I know we wont be the super power forever, but you know what? We will be the superpower a lot longer assuming we act in or best interest now. I dont care if our allies dont support us, and I dont care if that pisses off other countries. America is supposed to do what is in America's interests. We have no responsibility to be nice or selfless. Countries are allowed to be selfish. The UNSC is a useless group of selfish countries. Each country on that council doesnt giev a damn about the UN resolutions it passes. Since when has China lived up to its human rights standards? I have no respect for them and I have yet to see a convincing Constitutional arguement of why we should even take their opinion into consideration.

[blueindian]

Ummmm, why do we care if countries are pissed at us?

i can't actully belive you said that! we care because we are a promenient member of an international community that we depend upon for survival. lets just take the extreme case for a moment and assume that every other country in the world was sufficiently pissed at us such that they stopped trading with us. do you honestly think our economy could support itself without imports/exports? and that's just one reason we should care if other countries are pissed at us.



The UNSC is a useless group of selfish countries. Each country on that council doesnt giev a damn about the UN resolutions it passes
where do you get this from? now you sound like bush, just handing out statments that seem to have little to no facts to back them up. and for the record, the UNSC has nothing to do with human rights in china.

[gear02]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Ummmm, why do we care if countries are pissed at us? Granted I know we wont be the super power forever, but you know what? We will be the superpower a lot longer assuming we act in or best interest now. I dont care if our allies dont support us, and I dont care if that pisses off other countries. America is supposed to do what is in America's interests. We have no responsibility to be nice or selfless. Countries are allowed to be selfish. The UNSC is a useless group of selfish countries. Each country on that council doesnt giev a damn about the UN resolutions it passes. Since when has China lived up to its human rights standards? I have no respect for them and I have yet to see a convincing Constitutional arguement of why we should even take their opinion into consideration.

You know, that can be fine and dandy if we weren't so dependent on the international community for practically everything. Say we follow your approach and screw the international community by implementing our "American Policy" and bomb Iraq. People get mad at us and we get censured in the UN. Big deal. Now we continue to carry out our policy on more countries in the middle east and Indonesia, since they must be harboring terrorists even if we can't provide solid evidence to allies, so we invade and bomb them as well. Hey, after all, we're just implementing the American policy and making Americans safe. Of course, we don't care that the people in those regions are running for their lives and we just caused their lives to be upturned like ants. But if one American life is saved we don't care right?

So let's continue. Now after bombing several Muslim countries, the Arab League gets real mad and declares war or something. First, they cut us off from oil supplies so gas prices here sky rocket. Now Germany, France and Russia don't support us at all so we get no help from them, not to mention no more German cars for us. China and Japan are outraged and put an embargo on us, so no more electronics and stuff.

So by trying to implement American policy, we've managed to isolate ourselves from the world. Hurray. Americans don't live alone on Earth. We have to, HAVE TO, get along with others and work together on international issues.

About China's human rights issues, that's a different situation. That's an internal matter. Are they subjugating anyone other than Chinese? No. It's wrong and I'm not condoning what they do to their citizens. Heck, I'm Chinese and I am disgusted and outraged by China's suppression of their people and their rights, but they don't affect the international community the way an invasion and bombing does.

Remember we already overthrew a government this year and the world reluctantly accepted it. Now we want to do it again. In the HISTORY of the world, the only time more than one country has been invaded and attacked is World War 2. Do we want another? We will IF we don't have international support.

[gear02]

Originally posted by Yossarian

damnit you beat me to it :hihi:

okokok...by long time I didn't mean like to the ends of the Earth. I meant like in the past 30-40 years or something which is a lot in international affairs.

yeah yeah yeah...:P

[Cantacuzene]

Gear, thats a pretty thin worst case senario to be afraid of. None of that is going to happen.

You, like almost everyone else is confused about what we are fighting. We arent attacking countries because they are harboring terrorists. We are attacking governments that promote a particular ideology.

If we dont act against the ideology what is our other choice? To bargain with them? To appease them? That sends the message that militant islam is successful and a useful path to getting what you want.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by blueindian


i can't actully belive you said that! we care because we are a promenient member of an international community that we depend upon for survival. lets just take the extreme case for a moment and assume that every other country in the world was sufficiently pissed at us such that they stopped trading with us. do you honestly think our economy could support itself without imports/exports? and that's just one reason we should care if other countries are pissed at us.


where do you get this from? now you sound like bush, just handing out statments that seem to have little to no facts to back them up. and for the record, the UNSC has nothing to do with human rights in china.

News flash, the world needs us more then we need them. If teh world chose to not trade with us it would much to their detriment, I assure you. We make enough food to feed our people, the rest of the world doesnt. They choose not to trade with us, fine. Lets se how long they last when they start getting hungry.

The UNSC DOES have much to do with human rights in china. The UN passes resolutions which would make countries like China come to certain standards but guess what? They veto those. Every other country on the security council vetoes things they dont like, and so should we.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by gear02


I think I'm also against this whole thing as long as we don't have support from the international community. I mean, even our long time allies don't support us on this one (Germany, France, Russia etc.)

It also stirs up the Middle East at a time where a small firecracker can light up the entire region. Either cool the area down, possibly even creating a Palestinian state, or provide SOLID evidence to the world.




Do you think Saddam is sympathetic to terrorists?

Answer that, and you'll have your answer on whether or not we should forcefully remove him.

Plus... we're quietly receiving support from places like Iran, who said that they will not consider planes flying over their country as hostility toward Iran (i.e. they are granting us use of their airspace for attacks on Iraq). This is Iran, we're talking about. Not exactly one of our GREAT friends, but still, diplomatically providing support. Syria and Jordan are speaking similarly.





Dave.

[gear02]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Gear, thats a pretty thin worst case senario to be afraid of. None of that is going to happen.

You, like almost everyone else is confused about what we are fighting. We arent attacking countries because they are harboring terrorists. We are attacking governments that promote a particular ideology.

If we dont act against the ideology what is our other choice? To bargain with them? To appease them? That sends the message that militant islam is successful and a useful path to getting what you want.

Btw you know there are militant Christians in Ireland that have killed a lot of people in England and yet we really don't give a damn about. Just to throw that out there...

You know, I don't understand the difference in your explanation about attacking governments. I don't understand why it matters. We're attacking a government. Period. We're attacking a whole country. Period. We're invading a country. Period. For that alone, don't you think we would need support from friends? The theater of combat is in an area that we can't really reach without bases on allied soil. We would need intelligence help from allies in the area. We would need allies to help with logistics and supplies? Finally, we need allies to be morally supportive. If we attack, and France and Russia don't like the idea, what prevents them from attack at us?

Your arguement about me not understanding why we fight is wrong. I do understand. We fight those who attack us. We fight those who pose a serious immenent threat. I actually agree that we should attack Iraq. Historically, they have been very dishonest about the arms inspectors. They wouldn't be so fishy if they had nothing to hide. They are hiding something bad and historically shows that Saddam will use it eventually. So let's attack. However, don't do it alone.

Btw Canta, attack my arguements, but don't attack me. Your comments are bordering on a personal level.

[gear02]

Originally posted by Dave_7



Do you think Saddam is sympathetic to terrorists?

Answer that, and you'll have your answer on whether or not we should forcefully remove him.

Plus... we're quietly receiving support from places like Iran, who said that they will not consider planes flying over their country as hostility toward Iran (i.e. they are granting us use of their airspace for attacks on Iraq). This is Iran, we're talking about. Not exactly one of our GREAT friends, but still, diplomatically providing support. Syria and Jordan are speaking similarly.



Yes and yes I do agree we need to send him to hell, not his country since it's already there.

And you're right, we're getting some support. That's good. What worries me is that some of the bigger allies don't. I'm sure how important that is, but I do know that the more allies in the Middle East, the better.

I'm just stumped as to why we don't pull out evidence and SHOW everyone Iraq is doing all this? Wouldn't that make more sense than all this diplomacy crap? I mean, if you want to prove a guy committed murder you get forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts, etc. You don't just point a finger at him and say he's a murderer...

Oh well...tis a strange world.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by gear02
The theater of combat is in an area that we can't really reach without bases on allied soil. We would need intelligence help from allies in the area. We would need allies to help with logistics and supplies? Finally, we need allies to be morally supportive. If we attack, and France and Russia don't like the idea, what prevents them from attack at us?


Whats funny is last I hear France, China and Russia dont border Iraq. Turkey, Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia do. And guess what? They've pledged support! We have all the allies we need against Iraq right there.


Being attacked by France: :heh:
As for Russia or France attacking us: I'm not afraid of France. I'm only slightly more concerned about Russia. Russia wont attack us over something as trivial as Iraq. Here is another fact. We are members of NATO. Russia is not. If Russia attacked us NATO is FORCED to defend us. Russia isnt exactly ready to take on US, CAnada and most of western and central europe.

Sorry if I said anything that perosnally attacked you I didnt mean to. I was just saying that the slippery slope arguement you put forth is technically a fallicy.

[gear02]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Whats funny is last I hear France, China and Russia dont border Iraq. Turkey, Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia do. And guess what? They've pledged support! We have all the allies we need against Iraq right there.


Being attacked by France: :heh:
As for Russia or France attacking us: I'm not afraid of France. I'm only slightly more concerned about Russia. Russia wont attack us over something as trivial as Iraq. Here is another fact. We are members of NATO. Russia is not. If Russia attacked us NATO is FORCED to defend us. Russia isnt exactly ready to take on US, CAnada and most of western and central europe.

Sorry if I said anything that perosnally attacked you I didnt mean to. I was just saying that the slippery slope arguement you put forth is technically a fallicy.

Yeah I know. That was some creative thinking and storytelling on my apart. =)

Go to this page: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/iraq/ and click on "Map: World Stances on Iraq" and you'll see the support is not widespread. PLUS, it's always good to have the support of the big five (China, Russia, France, England, US) because of their veto power in the UN as well as their international stature. Think about it, if we attack WITHOUT the support of the EU and some of the Big Five, then it would make our "War on Terror" more difficult as it progresses.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by gear02


Yes and yes I do agree we need to send him to hell, not his country since it's already there.



Agreed. Which is, of course, why we're encouraging his generals to defect. Will that work? I'm not really sure.

And I think the case was already made by the Clinton administration. They said there was a need to remove Saddam from power and received much support from both houses for that.

The requirements were met, at that time, but the time wasn't right. And now... now the time is right. No further requirements must be met (IMHO). If there was good enough reason then, then there's CERTAINLY enough reason now.

Our great natural defenses (the oceans on either side) don't protect us as greatly as before because we're (potentially) flying in terrorists every day from other countries on commercial airlines.

And a terrorist organization with state sposorship or support or even sympathy.... is a VERY formidible enemy. We've successfully made Afganistan less-friendly to terrorists, thereby making the world somewhat safer.

Cut off the legs upon which terrorism stands... and you're on your way to toppling it. Iraq's regime is that next leg.




Dave.

[InfiniteNothing]

If all our allies jumped off a bridge, would you want the US too. Personaly I don't really care about the support from MOST of the countries. But if there was a ban from Japan, I'd be a little pissed. Think about Sony, Nintendo, Toyota, and all the other support we get from them. Okay, this is a half serious post hold the flames.

[kimchicowboy]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


News flash, the world needs us more then we need them. If teh world chose to not trade with us it would much to their detriment, I assure you. We make enough food to feed our people, the rest of the world doesnt. They choose not to trade with us, fine. Lets se how long they last when they start getting hungry.

:stupid:


Btw you know there are militant Christians in Ireland that have killed a lot of people in England and yet we really don't give a damn about. Just to throw that out there...
i don't see them threatening the US like islamic extremists.

as i read in the LA Times today, the bush administration (including bush, powell, other military leaders) stated that they will only pursue military action if diplomatic means do not work. that may be a lie. but you don't know, do you? can someone tell me with 100% proof and truth that we WILL go to war with iraq?

[blueindian]

if you've been paying attention, team bush has just recently switched their stance on invading iraq. at first, they wanted congressional authorization to do whatever they wanted when they wanted. however, realizing that neither the american public nor congress would support such a broad resolution, they've changed saying that of course they will pursue diplomatic options first.

the question is: if they are going to pursue diplomatic options, then why at this stage do we need to authorize the president to act against the will of the UNSC and use force?

the answer(IMHO) is: team bush will find a reason to go to war in iraq. then, an american friendly regime will be installed, and we will have control over iraq's oil. however, in the process, the 'anti terror coalition' of 60 nations that we have struggled to build will fall apart at the seams. we will piss off other nations, particulary islamic nations. we may well succeed in doing what bin Laden wanted to do: rally many middle eastern nations(or at least terror groups) into unified gihad against the US.

and the fact of the matter remains: by going into iraq, we will be invading a soverign nation without showing the international communtiy any proof of our claims that he is a threat to the US. in the view of much of the world, again particularly islamic nations, we will have become terrorists ourselves.(a lot already think that anyway, becasue of our support of isreal, which uses state sponsered terror tactics)

[gear02]

Originally posted by kimchicowboy

:stupid:

i don't see them threatening the US like islamic extremists.

Yeah, they don't threaten the US, but they're still terrorists. Oh well, if it doesn't affect us, then we don't care. The mantra of the US.



as i read in the LA Times today, the bush administration (including bush, powell, other military leaders) stated that they will only pursue military action if diplomatic means do not work. that may be a lie. but you don't know, do you? can someone tell me with 100% proof and truth that we WILL go to war with iraq?


You know...i'm not sure Bush can pronounce "diplomatic"...

In all kidding aside, you are right. However, given the past history, I'm not putting too much faith in diplomacy. Saddam has never held his word. If diplomacy would work, we would have solved this mess a long time ago. I think that even if we find an agreement, it would only delay the inevitable. Still here's to hoping.

[kimchicowboy]

Originally posted by blueindian
if you've been paying attention, team bush has just recently switched their stance on invading iraq. at first, they wanted congressional authorization to do whatever they wanted when they wanted. however, realizing that neither the american public nor congress would support such a broad resolution, they've changed saying that of course they will pursue diplomatic options first.

wait. so they've switched their stance on invading iraq or they will pursue diplomatic options first? and i have been paying attention. that why i wrote what i did after reading that day's LA Times.

another question to toss out: so we got weapon's inspectors that are going to visit iraq's weapons sites. what makes you think that saddam hussein cannot cover up any evidence before the inspectors come? hm?

[kimchicowboy]

Originally posted by gear02

You know...i'm not sure Bush can pronounce "diplomatic"...

yeah. and my friend from brooklyn can't pronounce "coffee" correctly either. :P

[gear02]

Originally posted by kimchicowboy

another question to toss out: so we got weapon's inspectors that are going to visit iraq's weapons sites. what makes you think that saddam hussein cannot cover up any evidence before the inspectors come? hm?

yup...that's the big problem. unfortunately there's a lot of countries out there who are naive enough to believe that if we can't find anything then there's nothing there.

[Cantacuzene]

There are a lot of misconceptions about the weapons inspection process.

First, the inspectors know what their looking for. Nuclear reactors arent easy to move or hide. You may say, "but he can buy the plutonium on the black market and they wont know its there!" To that I say, where is he going to buy the super computer and the technicians to run it? The inspectors are clever, they know there are tell tale signs beyond just the actual nuclear material to tell them what they are looking for.

As far as chemical warfare, they arent looking for barrels of VX, tehy are looking for the labs to make it. Labs arent easy to move, neither are the fact that the CIA knows everyone in Iraq with a degree in biological engineering. Account for them.

Ballistic missles cant be fired from a laptop. They require special computers and engineers of their own. How many people in Iraq have degrees in rocketry? Enough for the CIA to track. Account for them. Accont for the computer purchases than can be tracked.

Its really not easy to hide anything from the inspectors unless Iraq bars them from going places. If the inspectors get the full access they are entitled to, any weapons exist they will find them. If they get partial access they wont find them.

[kimchicowboy]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Its really not easy to hide anything from the inspectors unless Iraq bars them from going places. If the inspectors get the full access they are entitled to, any weapons exist they will find them. If they get partial access they wont find them.
yeah. that's a problem. presidential palaces (however many there are) are off-limits if i'm correct. and when they use the term "palace", boy, they mean it.

[gear02]

Originally posted by kimchicowboy

yeah. that's a problem. presidential palaces (however many there are) are off-limits if i'm correct. and when they use the term "palace", boy, they mean it.

Yeah...you know it might be worth it to bomb his palaces just because the moron is living in palaces while the rest of the country lives in absolute poverty (and worse).

[Cantacuzene]

I'm sure most of his palaces pre-date hid reign. We are talking about a city that has been a world capital for 2000 years.

[kimchicowboy]

they just happen to have gold-plated faucets that actually have running water, eh? :P

[Cantacuzene]

They can renovate and add things.

If master P can afford gold faucets I imagine a dictator can afford them too.