I'm Glad I'm Not American [Archive]

jeff_archer7

02-04-2005, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by MstrBob
Oh god, another "My place country is better then yours" debate. Ummmmmm Not really... I not once mentioned my counnrty, was just pointing out what I had seen on an informative website (that is american)
Originally posted by MstrBob
These things pop up all over, don't they just? The whole idea is absurd to me, and seems very ethnocentric. Of course, this seems to fit in well with the apparant attitude of many Europeans that I've come across, whom seem to believe they are the only intelligent ones capable of understanding how to run the world, and that us stupid Americans are running around like cavemen with a giantclub until we eventually bash our own skull. Spare me.. I'm not European, (lol at the second part though... shall I call you UGG from now on?)
Originally posted by MstrBob

This will only lead to trouble. As will ALL political debates. I really don't like how these types of threads pop up and cause such debate, it brings about harsh feelings. This isn't a place for politics, this is a place for web development. If we had a Microsoft, Internet Explorer, W3C, table, one server side language vs the other server side language, ect. type of debates, I'd understand. But really now, the only thing this thread will accomplish is for people to go around bashing the other's country and view points. I was not wanting to start political debate, moreover I posted this in the COFFEE LOUNGE part of forums, after all lets look at some other threads here (NOT REALLY WEB FOCUSED HUH???)

It seems the freedoms America hold so dear come at a very high price, I understand GB is just a man, however it is the Machine behind the man I find disturbing... America is propped up by a very weak base (seemingly.... My fears are that when (not if) America crashes to the ground it will take sooo many others with it (including my own) I feel that the people of America should be better informed about what is, and what is not reality concerning the overall state of being.... I know most (some) of you (here at forums) are very intelligent well informed people, yet it is my belief that you represent the very small minority..... I am tired about hearing how wonderful/godly GB is, (or is not ) and found a well written article that highlighted some shady points that seem to weaken his (self confessed) position.... I'M not ANTI-AMERICA.... nto even anti_GB just was supprised/shocked at some of the truth about Him that lessened my opinion of his leadership capabilities........
After all acording to you guys i do get the luxury of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.......
take care........ (oh yeah and if you havent done so , read the article)

MstrBob

02-04-2005, 07:13 PM

I know what you posted, however I also have a sense of where this will lead. First off, a "I'm Glad I'm Not xxx" as a title will tick people off to start with. As for the "weak base" America is standing on, you seem to have a more apocalyptic view of things. Yes, it is the nature of all superpowers to fall, and yes, America's power is on the decline. I do not, however, see a sudden collapse that will drag down the world.

And now you say that the intelligent make up the small minority? Well, first off, that is true about all and every civilization, country, and group. It's the nature of things that there's a small group of the very proficient. But then again, if everyone were the best, best wouldn't have any meaning. That is not to say, however, that the American public is uneducated. Please, spare me, it fits in with the American stereotype people like fitting us into. That ticks me off more then anything else. I assure you that Americans are very much aware of what's going on in the world, we're not blindfolded. Americans are split, however, on the best course of action to be taken, and merely because you disagree with the course of action does not mean that the group is ignorant to what is happening.

As for the article, yes, the government is corrupt. I feel comfortable in saying that any group of any substantial size is somewhat corrupt. Nothing is free from it, though some groups are much worse and much more corrupt. Businesses, unions, churches, governments, militaries, departments, ministries, bureaus, they're all critically flawed in the fact that they are composed of people, no? And people are flawed, thus, organizations are inherently flawed. I'm not justifying it, I'm merely stating that I'm not surprised by it, and, as the article itself states, it's nothing new. But neither is it something unique to America.

I'm still not happy with this thread, however. Yes, you and everyone has the right to express themselves. I do, however, feel that with that right comes certain responsibility. If you're going to start a thread that you know will cause strife and debate, and you know that posting won't actually change anything at all, I feel you are misusing that right. You are expressing yourself just to get people riled up, wether that is the intent or not. And especially considering that this is not a forum for such places, I do feel it's out of placed. Yes, the Coffee Lounge is a place for things off topic, but not for things that are going to bring about strife.

smercer

02-04-2005, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by jeff_archer7
It seems the freedoms America hold so dear come at a very high price, I understand GB is just a man, however it is the Machine behind the man I find disturbing... America is propped up by a very weak base (seemingly.... My fears are that when (not if) America crashes to the ground it will take sooo many others with it (including my own) I feel that the people of America should be better informed about what is, and what is not reality concerning the overall state of being.... I know most (some) of you (here at forums) are very intelligent well informed people, yet it is my belief that you represent the very small minority..... I am tired about hearing how wonderful/godly GB is, (or is not ) and found a well written article that highlighted some shady points that seem to weaken his (self confessed) position.... I'M not ANTI-AMERICA.... nto even anti_GB just was supprised/shocked at some of the truth about Him that lessened my opinion of his leadership capabilities........
After all acording to you guys i do get the luxury of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.......
take care........ (oh yeah and if you havent done so , read the article)

I agree. Although you will find that many here will make comments which comes from their ignorance with comments like:

"that web site is base less" even though they are ill informed. the only reason its base less is because the person that posts (or reads it) don’t know the facts therefore baseless on their understanding.

"that website is not official" this is for when they get desperate and cant argue with well known facts. this is usually posted by the ignorant.

edit:if they ask for official sites post sites like http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/dc0603/ch1.htm
that has a .gov

"what a load of crap" is a straight out insult and usually comes from people who have heard it all before while remaining ignorant of their rights, and just wants to make believe that everything is as it should be.

theuedimaster

02-04-2005, 07:53 PM

Yup, someone should close this thread now. PeofEo is going to reply with a bunch of lies, and I'll just have to keep countering him :D Provoking title too, especially of those who follow blindly... and you know what they do when you tell them something they refuse to accept.

smercer

02-04-2005, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Provoking title too, especially of those who follow blindly...

yes it is a bit provoking, though I am glad not be a american currently because of politcal reasons. times change though, like the roman empire, and there will be a river of blood before it happens.

Jick

02-04-2005, 09:32 PM

Ok, let's tone it down guys... Besides the fact that this thread was put on the watch list the second it was created, it is becoming an unwanted entity in the community I believe. Let's cool it down or I'll be force to close it.

PeOfEo

02-04-2005, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Yup, someone should close this thread now. PeofEo is going to reply with a bunch of lies, and I'll just have to keep countering him :D Provoking title too, especially of those who follow blindly... and you know what they do when you tell them something they refuse to accept. A bunch of lies? I am not Michael Moore, I do not lie and try to fool others into thinking I am telling the truth. I am also not the former president named Clinton who happened to be on the left end of the spectrum who lied under oath. I am also not a liberal mass senator named Ted who killed a woman years ago in a drunk driving accident and then lied about it. No, I am not a liberal, I would say the libs tend to lie a bit more and treat big issues like political footballs instead of acting in the best interest of the nation.

PeOfEo

02-04-2005, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by smercer
I agree. Although you will find that many here will make comments which comes from their ignorance with comments like:

"that web site is base less" even though they are ill informed. the only reason its base less is because the person that posts (or reads it) don’t know the facts therefore baseless on their understanding.

"that website is not official" this is for when they get desperate and cant argue with well known facts. this is usually posted by the ignorant.

edit:if they ask for official sites post sites like http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/dc0603/ch1.htm
that has a .gov

"what a load of crap" is a straight out insult and usually comes from people who have heard it all before while remaining ignorant of their rights, and just wants to make believe that everything is as it should be. Oh, I bet you were commenting about that guy's personal home page that you posted about some 9/11 conspiracy. Of course I am not going to trust a site that has no credibility to put on the line, and I will challenge it. You and I both know that anyone can put something on the internet and not everyone is a credible source. You blindly following them is going to lead you on the wrong path. Not having reliable sources can mess up your day. Remember Dan Rather?

smercer

02-04-2005, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Oh, I bet you were commenting about that guy's personal home page that you posted about some 9/11 conspiracy. Of course I am not going to trust a site that has no credibility to put on the line, and I will challenge it. You and I both know that anyone can put something on the internet and not everyone is a credible source. You blindly following them is going to lead you on the wrong path. Not having reliable sources can mess up your day. Remember Dan Rather?

Quote from website
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/dc0603/ch1.htm
On April 24 and 25, 2002, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia Advisory Committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held a joint community forum focusing on civil rights concerns in the Washington, D.C.

try not to overlook (or ignore) the facts. I find that you have not yet stated any reliable sources yourself (that I have come across). by the way when was the last time you posted a reliable source when talking about politics?

PeOfEo

02-04-2005, 10:19 PM

let me comment on a few points in the article:

Halliburon:
Halliburton's no bid contract was more of a "no body else has the ability to bid" contract. We need to rebuild a country, only a few countries have the ability to help us do that. One of them is in the area, it is named Halliburton. It can do it much more affordably then its competition which only consists of two other companies I believe. Cheyney was the CEO of that company but he cashed out and had no assets in the company when he went back into the public sector. There is no scandal, just a bunch of dems who hate republicans and want to point fingers.

Guantánamo Bay Torture:
Prisoners are hit in guantanamo and maced pretty often. But this is in retalitiation to their abuse on guards. I read a big article about this. In one case a guard smacked a prisoner because the prisoner tried to throw fluid on a guard that is believed to have been piss. How is this torture?

Abu Ghraib:
This did not have links that reach all the way up to the white house. There is nothing that suggests that it did. At most it looks like some misguided youth. An experiment was conducted at a univertisty (dont know the name off the top of my head, I might be able to dig it up) on prisons and guards several years ago. 10 college students were guards 20 were prisoners. After about a week with no interfearance the guards were doing horrible things to the prisoners and the experiment was haulted. Being in a possision of power like that can warp someone's mind and that is what this looks like to me.

Niger Uranium: Not corruption, just misinformation fead to our intelligence.

Case for war: Iraq has had weapons, has used them in the past, has always been reguarded as a threat. We were attacked and saddam also was clearly supporting terrorism. We took him out. His weapons use in the past and unwillingness to play ball with inspectons left it as the only real option. I still think there are weapons and they were moved. We even found weapons in Iraq, we found a ton of them burried in the sand box that were supposed to be destroyed after the first war... they were not. Only sealed off in a bunker. Also saddam had skuds and alsammoud (sp?) II missiles. The perfect delivery system for chemical of biologocal weapons? Not to mention shells filled with serin found on insurgents, that stuff is not made by the pint.

AWOL: I do not even see how this is an issue.

Those are some of the points. I do not see any massive corruption as this article would suggest. This article is just pointing a figner. I would not consider this to be factual. It just seems like someone on the left of the spectrum who is bitter and wants to play some more political football.

PeOfEo

02-04-2005, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by smercer
try not to overlook (or ignore) the facts. I find that you have not yet stated any reliable sources yourself (that I have come across). by the way when was the last time you posted a reliable source when talking about politics? What are you talking about. I am not talking about that website you just linked in your last post. I am talking about that one website you posted in reguard to some 9/11 conspiracy that looked rinkydink, like some guys home page.

I am not going to past something as uncredible (because incredible does not have the correct connotation) as that to support my case. I will debate using logic or paste a resource that has some credibility. A resource that would loose that credibility if they publish false things. I have posted things from the bbc, fox news, and others here on the forum in the past.

Jupac

02-04-2005, 11:08 PM

We need nullification !!!! wow Cali would be like teh best state with the worst goveror

smercer

02-04-2005, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo

let me comment on a few points in the article:

Halliburon:
Halliburton's no bid contract was more of a "no body else has the ability to bid" contract. We need to rebuild a country, only a few countries have the ability to help us do that. One of them is in the area, it is named Halliburton. It can do it much more affordably then its competition which only consists of two other companies I believe. Cheyney was the CEO of that company but he cashed out and had no assets in the company when he went back into the public sector. There is no scandal, just a bunch of dems who hate republicans and want to point fingers.

Halliburton overcharged the army for fuel in Iraq. Specifically, Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root hired a Kuwaiti company, Altanmia, to supply fuel at about twice the going rate, then added a markup, for an overcharge of at least $61 million, according to a December 2003 Pentagon audit.
yeah, great job,</sarcasm> made lots of profits while they were at it.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Guantánamo Bay Torture:
Prisoners are hit in guantanamo and maced pretty often. But this is in retalitiation to their abuse on guards. I read a big article about this. In one case a guard smacked a prisoner because the prisoner tried to throw fluid on a guard that is believed to have been piss. How is this torture?

And what was the full story? I bet it didn't say what really happened, like what the guards did to him.

also, are you basing all this on one instance? what about the other times, which are much worse?

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Abu Ghraib:
This did not have links that reach all the way up to the white house. There is nothing that suggests that it did. At most it looks like some misguided youth. An experiment was conducted at a univertisty (dont know the name off the top of my head, I might be able to dig it up) on prisons and guards several years ago. 10 college students were guards 20 were prisoners. After about a week with no interfearance the guards were doing horrible things to the prisoners and the experiment was haulted. Being in a possision of power like that can warp someone's mind and that is what this looks like to me.

No Bush and friends just has the money to bribe and stop investigations before they get anywhere.

also (please answer this) if you try to become a political candidate, you first have pay a high price that the majority of the US population cannot afford. This effectively prevents the non-rich people (un-spoiled by wealth) from getting in and setting rules against big business so that they have to go by the rules. Now we have false advertising, disposable cars (one crash and it's finished) etc.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Niger Uranium: Not corruption, just misinformation fead to our intelligence.

Just because they say he was fed misinformation does it really mean its true?

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Case for war: Iraq has had weapons, has used them in the past, has always been reguarded as a threat. We were attacked and saddam also was clearly supporting terrorism. We took him out. His weapons use in the past and unwillingness to play ball with inspectons left it as the only real option. I still think there are weapons and they were moved. We even found weapons in Iraq, we found a ton of them burried in the sand box that were supposed to be destroyed after the first war... they were not. Only sealed off in a bunker. Also saddam had skuds and alsammoud (sp?) II missiles. The perfect delivery system for chemical of biologocal weapons? Not to mention shells filled with serin found on insurgents, that stuff is not made by the pint.

Really?</sarcasm> If he had and used those weapons, a lot more would be dead right now when US invaded Iraq.

Any way that sounds like its from a political excuse engine for an excuse to invade Iraq for it's true mineral wealth (oil).

Originally posted by PeOfEo

AWOL: I do not even see how this is an issue.

"Misleading statements" not an issue? so if he says "there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" which is known to be misleading and you go to war on that, is that not an issue either?

Originally posted by PeOfEo

This article is just pointing a figner. I would not consider this to be factual. It just seems like someone on the left of the spectrum who is bitter and wants to play some more political football.
the pot is calling the kettle black.

theuedimaster

02-05-2005, 12:39 AM

Bravo Smercer, Bravo.

And about Michael Moore; hes a great film maker. Realy thought-provoking movies. How is he twisting the truth now? Give me some instances.....

Good job Smercer, defending the homefront.

Really, you're only a name caller PeofEo. "oh hes a flaming lib", "that left-sided lib", "dangerous lib"... you're just acting like a know-nothing, brainwashed member of the republican party. Liberals tend to lie more? My ass. All you republicans want are money. Not you exactly, see, you are the victim PeofEo. The guys on top are profiting from people like you who are oblivious to the fact that they only want money. They don't care about the people, they only hope for their buisnesses to grow.
Oh about the Ted guy that killed his wife... did you hear about this guy named Bush who has killed more than 100,000 people? Yeah, more than Sadam..... weird eh? Who would of known.... Did you know of some people.. who were their names?... oh yeah, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Bush... didn't they lie about weapons of mass destruction? Didn't the consequences of their lies stem tens of thousands of death? It think thats a little bigger than having a friggin affair. Oh God, one woman is forced - "sort of" - to have sex with the president. Bad yes, but not worse than the murder of thousands of civilians. Did you hear about the flaming conservatives that gave the Bin Laden family money and weapons? How bout the flaming conservative which is selling our economy to them? How about the flaming conservative that blew up the Oklahoma building thingy. How about the flaming conservative thats giving the tax payers money to help raise the profits of greedy buisnessmen? Eh? There is no comparison to what the flaming conservatives have done to the liberals. No comparison. There is no way to compare murder to lying and such. Do not try to make such a proposition.

The fact is, the Republicans are killers, they admit they are killers, and they love being killers. The endorse the people who kill, the endorse any reason to kill(there are none by the way, people just make em' up), the point is, if a solution comes to killing someone, you guys will jump on it. If a republican who supports the war thinks he is not contributing to the deaths of others or doesn't have a weight of murder around his neck, he is ignorant to the situation.

I have had enough of you PeofEo, saying "he's a flaming lib", or "shes a flaming lib"... there are so many flaming conservatives, you can, very accurately, say every single republican out there is a flaming conservative. My God, they're all gonna burn someday....... its ironic that you condemn a "flaming lib": a person who cares too much. I condem the "flaming conservative": a person who will sacrifice anything for their own good. Damn egoists.

theuedimaster

02-05-2005, 12:42 AM

jeff_archer7

02-05-2005, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by MstrBob, A.K.A. UGG
I know what you posted, however I also have a sense of where this will lead. First off, a "I'm Glad I'm Not xxx" as a title will tick people off to start with. As for the "weak base" America is standing on, you seem to have a more apocalyptic view of things. Yes, it is the nature of all superpowers to fall, and yes, America's power is on the decline. I do not, however, see a sudden collapse that will drag down the world.
.

The title was not designed to be inflamatory in any way, I apologise if you took it badly however I was stating a true fact concerning myself
Apocolyptic views????? come now lets keep this in perspective, your melodramatic slant on what was said is a bit 'over the top'

Originally posted by MstrBob, A.K.A. UGG

I'm still not happy with this thread, however. Yes, you and everyone has the right to express themselves. I do, however, feel that with that right comes certain responsibility. If you're going to start a thread that you know will cause strife and debate, and you know that posting won't actually change anything at all, I feel you are misusing that right. You are expressing yourself just to get people riled up, wether that is the intent or not. And especially considering that this is not a forum for such places, I do feel it's out of placed. Yes, the Coffee Lounge is a place for things off topic, but not for things that are going to bring about strife.

I never expected 'strife' from this thread, however your little 'hissy fit' is cause for concern.
debate is usually healthy, but one does need to keep thier heads
Out of place' maybe, but that is one mans opinion..

Due to your extreme views, I ask (for my own sanity) This thread be closed......

I apologise if I offended anyone (xept for Ugg...... lmao)
I apologise for any satire
I apologise for flippant remarks, real or percieved

I DID LIKE THE ARTICLE HOWEVER

TAKE CARE

smercer

02-05-2005, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Bravo Smercer, Bravo.
...
Good job Smercer, defending the homefront.

Thanks
Originally posted by theuedimaster

Really, you're only a name caller PeofEo. "oh hes a flaming lib", "that left-sided lib", "dangerous lib"... you're just acting like a know-nothing, brainwashed member of the republican party. Liberals tend to lie more? My ass. All you republicans want are money. Not you exactly, see, you are the victim PeofEo. The guys on top are profiting from people like you who are oblivious to the fact that they only want money.

shhh...That could be enough to close the thread. But how very true. shh don't tell Peo.

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Oh God, one woman is forced - "sort of" - to have sex with the president.

I think you must be thinking of Bill clinton? because I never heard Bush being a rapist...yet.

Jick

02-05-2005, 02:40 AM

This thread is skating on very thin ice. I would suggest you guys keep it clean. I have had reason to close it for some time now but I'm trying to let it ride. I need not remind you guys that even though you may not find any of this offensive or insulting, there are some who might. We need to think about the whole community here.

wamboid

02-05-2005, 10:54 AM

To answer a question from a much calmer area of the thread, I am origionally from Missouri, and have come back here probably to live permanently. I like our country, and Missouri feels like a good median of it.

As far as the political debate, I am basically and Independant. I didn't particularly like supporting Bush in the last election, but couldn't support Kerry in any way. I don't really want to get into my reasons for this yet. I'd rather write them out and mull over the wording, so as not to incite any trouble. Maybe I'll post something about that in a few days, if the thread stays open, which I doubt.

As far as reliable sources, I currently trust no one. You have to consider all sources and then use your own common sense and good reasoning ability to determine who to believe. This may sound paranoid, but really, after Dan Rathers incident, who can you put total faith in.

To close, I will start one little piece of potential controversy. In an ongoing debate with a friend, I have challenged him to give me an example of a direct lie that George Bush has told. By this, I don't mean something where he ended up being wrong, but where he actually lied. If your answer looks like it might cause trouble with the thread, please, dont post it and just send me a pm.

smercer

02-05-2005, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by wamboid
As far as the political debate, I am basically and Independant. I didn't particularly like supporting Bush in the last election, but couldn't support Kerry in any way. I don't really want to get into my reasons for this yet. I'd rather write them out and mull over the wording, so as not to incite any trouble. Maybe I'll post something about that in a few days, if the thread stays open, which I doubt.
As far as reliable sources, I currently trust no one. You have to consider all sources and then use your own common sense and good reasoning ability to determine who to believe. This may sound paranoid, but really, after Dan Rathers incident, who can you put total faith in.

You have more common sense then most when it comes to political debates.

and what you say about reliable sources, I tend to do the same, although, some others say they want it from a well known site, which is as you say too much faith into something anyone can write.

don't forget for the major sites it all comes down to a single person that says what can and can't be put on to their website (like an editer for a Newspaper firm), which is the same as a one man show website when it comes to credibilty.

Sneakz

02-05-2005, 11:58 AM

Jeff,

All us Americans are glad you're not American too. See there - we DO agree on something!

Sneakz

PeOfEo

02-05-2005, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Remember George W. Bush? please post things that make sense.

PeOfEo

02-05-2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Bravo Smercer, Bravo.

And about Michael Moore; hes a great film maker. Realy thought-provoking movies. How is he twisting the truth now? Give me some instances..... Oh only the fact that every conservative in the movie was misquoted and they said so publicly. Getting your facts from Moore is like getting news from the daily show.
Okay, I know I was offensive. I guess it is an insult to call someone liberal. Can you defend any of the people I mentioned?
All you republicans want are money. Not you exactly, see, you are the victim PeofEo. The guys on top are profiting from people like you who are oblivious to the fact that they only want money. They don't care about the people, they only hope for their buisnesses to grow. that is a beautiful lie/stereotype. Yes, because I am republican that must mean I am rich, greedy, and a racist.

Oh about the Ted guy that killed his wife... did you hear about this guy named Bush who has killed more than 100,000 people? Yeah, more than Sadam..... weird eh? Who would of known.... Did you know of some people.. who were their names?... oh yeah, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Bush... didn't they lie about weapons of mass destruction? Didn't the consequences of their lies stem tens of thousands of death? It think thats a little bigger than having a friggin affair. Oh God, one woman is forced - "sort of" - to have sex with the president. Bad yes, but not worse than the [b]murder of thousands of civilians. Did you hear about the flaming conservatives that gave the Bin Laden family money and weapons? How bout the flaming conservative which is selling our economy to them? How about the flaming conservative that blew up the Oklahoma building thingy. How about the flaming conservative thats giving the tax payers money to help raise the profits of greedy buisnessmen? Eh? There is no comparison to what the flaming conservatives have done to the liberals. No comparison. There is no way to compare murder to lying and such. Do not try to make such a proposition. Can we please have organized posts with factual information?

The fact is, the Republicans are killers, they admit they are killers, and they love being killers. The endorse the people who kill, the endorse any reason to kill(there are none by the way, people just make em' up), the point is, if a solution comes to killing someone, you guys will jump on it. If a republican who supports the war thinks he is not contributing to the deaths of others or doesn't have a weight of murder around his neck, he is ignorant to the situation. Did you miss the point of the war? Okay, how about we do _absolutly_nothing_ the next time terrorists attack us? I bet if clinton went to war you would support it eh? Support war when a democrat is the president.

I have had enough of you PeofEo, saying "he's a flaming lib", or "shes a flaming lib"... there are so many flaming conservatives, you can, very accurately, say every single republican out there is a flaming conservative. My God, they're all gonna burn someday....... its ironic that you condemn a "flaming lib": a person who cares too much. I condem the "flaming conservative": a person who will sacrifice anything for their own good. Damn egoists. The fact is that many democrats act in ways that are just geared to gain them power and are not good for the country. They use the issues like political footballs. I am sorry if you find the word liberal vulgar. If you think the word liberal leaves a bad taste in your mouth then stop associating with the liberals. Would you like some recent examples of how liberals have used issues like political footballs and just gone after people because they want power?

PeOfEo

02-05-2005, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by smercer

don't forget for the major sites it all comes down to a single person that says what can and can't be put on to their website (like an editer for a Newspaper firm), which is the same as a one man show website when it comes to credibilty. You can trust the major news companies more then the little sites because when a major news comapny screws up they take a big hit. Like cbs. Because of that screw up rather is basically being forced to retire and cbs lost a lot credibility. Major outlets tend to check their sources more. I am not saying I particularly like cbs but I will trust the information from them much more then something posted on joe blog's blog.

PeOfEo

02-05-2005, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Jick
This thread is skating on very thin ice. I would suggest you guys keep it clean. I have had reason to close it for some time now but I'm trying to let it ride. I need not remind you guys that even though you may not find any of this offensive or insulting, there are some who might. We need to think about the whole community here. This thread is not profain, we are just yelling at eachother... that's all.

PeOfEo

02-05-2005, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by smercer
yeah, great job,</sarcasm> made lots of profits while they were at it. I am sorry if the government forgot to haggle, but there is no corruption.

And what was the full story? I bet it didn't say what really happened, like what the guards did to him.

also, are you basing all this on one instance? what about the other times, which are much worse?

Among the abuse:
Quote
*a female interrogator took off her uniform top to expose her T-shirt to a detainee, ran her fingers through his hair and climbed on his lap.

*an interrogator told military police to repeatedly bring a detainee from a standing to kneeling position, so much that his knees were bruised.

*a guard punched a prisoner with his fist after the prisoner assaulted another guard.

*a guard sprayed a detainee with a hose when the prisoner allegedly tried to throw water from his toilet at the guard.

*a female interrogator wiped dye from a red magic marker on a detainee's shirt, telling him it was blood, after he allegedly spat on her.

*a military policeman used pepper spray on a detainee allegedly preparing to throw unidentified liquid on an officer.

*a military policeman squirted a detainee with water.

*a camp barber who gave two detainees reverse mohawks to frustrate detainee efforts to wear their hair the same way to demonstrate unity.

The original article was at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=589&ncid=716&e=6&u=/ap/20041105/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_abuse but it is not there anymore. I will dig up something else later when I have more time. The quote above was from another forum, where I was posting and those are quotes from the article

No Bush and friends just has the money to bribe and stop investigations before they get anywhere. Oh please :rolleyes:

also (please answer this) if you try to become a political candidate, you first have pay a high price that the majority of the US population cannot afford. This effectively prevents the non-rich people (un-spoiled by wealth) from getting in and setting rules against big business so that they have to go by the rules. Now we have false advertising, disposable cars (one crash and it's finished) etc. You can run for president withgout much money, but if you do noneone will know who you are. That is the price of advertising. There is no conspiracy.

Just because they say he was fed misinformation does it really mean its true? does it mean that bush lied? Does it mean that bush was making stuff up to go to war?

Really?</sarcasm> If he had and used those weapons, a lot more would be dead right now when US invaded Iraq. What are you talking about?

Any way that sounds like its from a political excuse engine for an excuse to invade Iraq for it's true mineral wealth (oil). Oh please, you just think the man is out to get everyone. THE WAR WAS NOT ABOUT OIL! The war was about Saddam Hussain supporting terrorism. This is a war against terrorism. Did we invade Afganistan for it's rich mineral wealth?

AWOL is the thin in that article about Bush's military experience.

PS: Did saddam ever have weapons of mass destruction?

[b]
the pot is calling the kettle black. No, it is me calling this article a bunch of Bologna.

smercer

02-05-2005, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by wamboid
To close, I will start one little piece of potential controversy. In an ongoing debate with a friend, I have challenged him to give me an example of a direct lie that George Bush has told. By this, I don't mean something where he ended up being wrong, but where he actually lied. If your answer looks like it might cause trouble with the thread, please, dont post it and just send me a pm.

It was a little late last night and desided to post this today.

List of George bush lies (http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html)

wamboid

02-05-2005, 09:52 PM

Smercer, you can be hilarious without even trying. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I meant that as a compliment. When I first went to that site you mentioned, for some reason a totally blank page was all that came up. I thought "wow, smercer thinks Bush has done no wrong!" Then I hit refresh and saw the site.

First of all, the stuff on the main page of the site is from the first election campaign. There were several examples of him saying things that were true, but given a favorable explanation maybe than deserved, and there were some some things that I would call misinformation rather than a lie. There were even some where he was wrong or quoted someone wrong and corrected it the next day. This isn't what I'm talking about.

Let me try to explain in web terms. If I tell you to use tables for layout because it is better than css, I am wrong, but if I really believe it, I don't really consider that to be a lie. If I review a site of yours that looks really good, except for the tables for layout, and tell you it looks wonderful, good job, then I haven't lied if it did look good. I've only failed to let you know how awful the code is that made it look good. If I tell you that your ugly poorly coded site is wonderful, then I have lied, even if I was just trying to be nice.

Maybe some of the article applies and I'm just too sleepy right now to think. I'll look again tomorrow.

smercer

02-05-2005, 10:18 PM

I didn't have much time to go over the page in great detail as I am at my niece’s birthday party (here).

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

also, I am not American, I have never been to America and I don't watch the news as I feel it is very distorted and as you say I have lost faith in them particularly, so I do not know what was said and what was not.

your right about the page being blank, that is very annoying. and no I was not trying to be funny as I prefer to always be serious when discussing politcs and similar issues.

Stephen Philbin

02-05-2005, 10:23 PM

I certainly don't subscribe to any stereotyping on any nation. I'm rather against it if truth be told actually. Bob is also quite right to point out that most people with a lot of power misuse it. It's nothing new and it won't go away. Elections for government in the UK are coming very soon and I must say I don't trust any of the major 3 parties. The only reason I will be voting when the time comes is to minimise the apparent support for the growing "British National Party" (a party famed for its extreme right wing Nazi like attitude and behaviour of its party members). You do however have to admit that it is a sorry state of affairs when I (and a vast number of others) are genuinely suprised to come accross Americans that are not ignorant and egocentric bigots.

That is not coming from any kind of stereotype at all. That is sadly, personal experience. I guess it's the nature of what people do that come here that gives rise to the most welcome change of a high concentration of perfectly well rounded, open minded and educated Americans. Look anywhere else online though and the story is invariably entirely different.

I do think the problem has got to a stage now though, where it has become bad enough to be self-perpetuating. People outside America get accustomed to being treated with contempt and arrogance by people from America. This in turn gets most people pretty upset about it. The less restrained lash out back at just about any American they come accross regardless of their behaviour, which in most cases causes more Americans to treat non Americans yet worse and so once again the cycle starts over. Nobody gets anywhere and people just get ore and more angry.

You can't choose to have a clean and non corrupt government, you can't choose how people treat you and talk to you, but you can choose who you listen and pay heed to and you can most certainly choose how you treat and speak to others in return.

smercer

02-06-2005, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Mr Herer
I certainly don't subscribe to any stereotyping on any nation. I'm rather against it if truth be told actually. Bob is also quite right to point out that most people with a lot of power misuse it. It's nothing new and it won't go away. Elections for government in the UK are coming very soon and I must say I don't trust any of the major 3 parties. The only reason I will be voting when the time comes is to minimise the apparent support for the growing "British National Party" (a party famed for its extreme right wing Nazi like attitude and behaviour of its party members). You do however have to admit that it is a sorry state of affairs when I (and a vast number of others) are genuinely suprised to come accross Americans that are not ignorant and egocentric bigots.

That is not coming from any kind of stereotype at all. That is sadly, personal experience. I guess it's the nature of what people do that come here that gives rise to the most welcome change of a high concentration of perfectly well rounded, open minded and educated Americans. Look anywhere else online though and the story is invariably entirely different.

I do think the problem has got to a stage now though, where it has become bad enough to be self-perpetuating. People outside America get accustomed to being treated with contempt and arrogance by people from America. This in turn gets most people pretty upset about it. The less restrained lash out back at just about any American they come accross regardless of their behaviour, which in most cases causes more Americans to treat non Americans yet worse and so once again the cycle starts over. Nobody gets anywhere and people just get ore and more angry.

You can't choose to have a clean and non corrupt government, you can't choose how people treat you and talk to you, but you can choose who you listen and pay heed to and you can most certainly choose how you treat and speak to others in return.

Well, sorry to the Americans but I think that Mr Herer is correct. I am not being biased or any thing, But I think it could be a factor within the schools, the court system, or even what is shown on TV over there, that may give them that kind of attitude. Though I have never been to America so that was just a guess.

Edit: after some comments about this post, I decided to edit it so that people do not get offended.

Not all Americans are as bad as most of the population has come to believe, and as you can see, it is the US Government that I truly hate, which makes the people of USA look bad, because the US Government represents the people (It's supposed to).

MstrBob

02-06-2005, 12:47 AM

Well, sorry to the Americans but I think that Mr Herer is correct. I am not being biased or any thing, But I think it could be a factor within the schools, the court system, or even what is shown on TV over there, that may give them that kind of attitude. Though I have never been to America so that was just a guess.

I'm sorry, but this is so utterly ridiculous. No matter anyway you slice it, you're stereotyping a country consisting of hundreds of millions of citizens. You're using your limited contact with some Americans to generalize the entire nation of us. I'm sorry, but I do indeed take a deep offense at that. As I'm sure anybody who's part of a stereotype is insulted. If I encountered say, a number of British citizens who were arogant, stuborn, and snotty, and then proceeded to say that the whole nation was like that, they teach it in the school systems and all, would not you take up offense at that?

If anything, comments such as the ones you've made do nothing except to foster ill relations between people. Now, an american coming across an attitude such as the one of yourself probably wouldn't be all that kindly towards you, because of how you assume they are. I really find it shocking that people have such attitudes on a message board on the international internet.

I don't know, nor would I assosciate myself with people who blindly treat foreignors with contempt mererly because they are foreign. Living in New York City, which is teeming with foreign-born residents, there isn't such an attitude about. Well, rather, it's not the mainstream attitude, there's bound to be negative attitudes in any society, but they do not reflect the attitude of America's majority. Really now...

smercer

02-06-2005, 01:46 AM

Right, now that the party's over I have time to poke holes in PeOfEo's statements.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

I am sorry if the government forgot to haggle, but there is no corruption.

It's not a case of haggling, It's the fact that the gov let them keep the contract for overcharging the army for fuel. but they just paid it all and nothing was even done about it.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

The original article was at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=589&ncid=716&e=6&u=/ap/20041105/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_abuse but it is not there anymore. I will dig up something else later when I have more time. The quote above was from another forum, where I was posting and those are quotes from the article

Sounds like the inmates were provoked into doing those things, and the story was written one sided deliberately.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Oh please :rolleyes:

Your faith in Bush is so strong that you are not going to accept it is even possible. He has money, therefore he has the means, He has the power therefore he has the opportunity and the motive is extra profits to do this.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

You can run for president withgout much money, but if you do noneone will know who you are. That is the price of advertising. There is no conspiracy.

Will look for more articles on that. As I am only going from memory.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

does it mean that bush lied? Does it mean that bush was making stuff up to go to war?

Did he provide proof that he was fed mis-information (eg an independant investigation)? No. It is only his statement that we are all going by and that does not mean that it is true.

"Does it mean that bush was making stuff up to go to war?" If the president of the United States of America says something like "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" he had better make sure it is true before doing ANYTHING else, don't you think? He did not even do that, yet he sent US Army, Australian Army and the British army blindly over there with out checking twice on weather it was true or not. Why did he do this? yep to go to war with Iraq.

Any way does this (Iraq not being allowed to have WMD) mean that USA is the only country that is allowed to have WMD, even though they use them not only for defence, but for Offensive attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and other countries? By the way, it still remains that USA is the only country to date that has used a nuclear bomb for an attack.

Russia has WMD, are they a threat? I would rather Russia have WMD then USA.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

What are you talking about?

I meant exactly what I wrote. If he had and used WMD, a lot less solders would have returned from Iraq.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Oh please, you just think the man is out to get everyone. THE WAR WAS NOT ABOUT OIL! The war was about Saddam Hussain supporting terrorism. This is a war against terrorism. Did we invade Afganistan for it's rich mineral wealth?

As I said before, follow the money.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

AWOL is the thin in that article about Bush's military experience.

as a warmonger?

Originally posted by PeOfEo

PS: Did saddam ever have weapons of mass destruction?

No. Were there any weapons found? only old fashioned rifles. No WMD have been found to date that was not staged for TV cameras.
Originally posted by PeOfEo

No, it is me calling this article a bunch of Bologna.

Anything that is against your beliefs is "a bunch of Bologna". Which just shows how open minded you are....Not.

PeOfEo

02-06-2005, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by smercer

also, I am not American, I have never been to America and I don't watch the news as I feel it is very distorted and as you say I have lost faith in them particularly, so I do not know what was said and what was not.
That is ironic, you do not watch the news because you think it is distored when the news is something that has to check it's sources because it has credibility to loose. Yet you find little hole in the wall personal home page type sites with no credibility to begin with safe places to get information from? Amazing.

PeOfEo

02-06-2005, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by smercer
Right, now that the party's over I have time to poke holes in PeOfEo's statements.

It's not a case of haggling, It's the fact that the gov let them keep the contract for overcharging the army for fuel. but they just paid it all and nothing was even done about it. Could the competition even compete?

Sounds like the inmates were provoked into doing those things, and the story was written one sided deliberately. Oh yeah, I am sure. It was from a major outlet it must be a lie. No, the guards were provoked, plain and simple.

Your faith in Bush is so strong that you are not going to accept it is even possible. He has money, therefore he has the means, He has the power therefore he has the opportunity and the motive is extra profits to do this. You have to realize that not all people are corrupt, you just seem to like conspiracy theories.

Did he provide proof that he was fed mis-information (eg an independant investigation)? No. It is only his statement that we are all going by and that does not mean that it is true. The cia had a big press conference about it. It is not just the president's word

"Does it mean that bush was making stuff up to go to war?" If the president of the United States of America says something like "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" he had better make sure it is true before doing ANYTHING else, don't you think? He did not even do that, yet he sent US Army, Australian Army and the British army blindly over there with out checking twice on weather it was true or not. Why did he do this? yep to go to war with Iraq. Once again, saddam clearly supported terrorism and this is a war on terrorism. Saddam used weapons in the past, proliferation is no chance we can take.

Any way does this (Iraq not being allowed to have WMD) mean that USA is the only country that is allowed to have WMD, even though they use them not only for defence, but for Offensive attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and other countries? By the way, it still remains that USA is the only country to date that has used a nuclear bomb for an attack.
Russia has WMD, are they a threat? I would rather Russia have WMD then USA.No, we are not the only country, we just do not want rogue nations having them. Russia having them (as long as they do not sell them) and other countries does not make them dangerous. This war is against countries that support terrorists and the WMD in saddams case could have landed in the hands of terrorists. That is what this has to do with.

I meant exactly what I wrote. If he had and used WMD, a lot less solders would have returned from Iraq. Saddam was not going to use them when we attacked. He wanted to do just what he did, hide them. To make us look like the bad guy. Was he successful? Obviously if you are crying corruption.

As I said before, follow the money.
Give me a break, you can make a better point then that. The war was not about oil and you cannot provide any solid evidence that it was.

as a warmonger?
I think you have some back reading to do on this one

No. Were there any weapons found? only old fashioned rifles. No WMD have been found to date that was not staged for TV cameras.
Ypu are wrong here, I asked if saddam ever had them. He used them in the Iran Iraq war, he used them on his own people. We have proof of that. The weapons inspectors ordered it destroyed after the first golf war. Much of it was not
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/obermann/040520
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

Anything that is against your beliefs is "a bunch of Bologna". Which just shows how open minded you are....Not. That article is a sea of lies. It does not have anything to do about me being open minded. Those are just allogations of a conspiracy that is really not there.

It is a pain having these threads with you because they consume plenty of time and it is like I am typing to a brick wall.

smercer

02-06-2005, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by MstrBob

I'm sorry, but this is so utterly ridiculous. No matter anyway you slice it, you're stereotyping a country consisting of hundreds of millions of citizens. You're using your limited contact with some Americans to generalize the entire nation of us. I'm sorry, but I do indeed take a deep offense at that. As I'm sure anybody who's part of a stereotype is insulted. If I encountered say, a number of British citizens who were arogant, stuborn, and snotty, and then proceeded to say that the whole nation was like that, they teach it in the school systems and all, would not you take up offense at that?

If anything, comments such as the ones you've made do nothing except to foster ill relations between people. Now, an american coming across an attitude such as the one of yourself probably wouldn't be all that kindly towards you, because of how you assume they are. I really find it shocking that people have such attitudes on a message board on the international internet.

I don't know, nor would I assosciate myself with people who blindly treat foreignors with contempt mererly because they are foreign. Living in New York City, which is teeming with foreign-born residents, there isn't such an attitude about. Well, rather, it's not the mainstream attitude, there's bound to be negative attitudes in any society, but they do not reflect the attitude of America's majority. Really now...

I suppose it would be difficult for a American to understand as they need to look at it from a foreign person's view point. I am sorry but that is how I find many people of all nationalities (except American) think.

I have met some people who have come from America.

One was my Info tech teachers was from Canada which is a part of America, who was really nice, Never rude, bigoted and did not have an ego of any kind.

Though I am not sure how this relates to USA.

Edit: after some comments about this post, I decided to edit it so that people do not get offended.

Not all Americans are as bad as most of the population has come to believe, and as you can see, it is the US Government that I truly hate, which makes the people of USA look bad, because the US Government represents the people (It's supposed to).

jeff_archer7

02-06-2005, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Sneakz the D@#$head Geek
Jeff,

All us Americans are glad you're not American too. See there - we DO agree on something!

Sneakz

I was refering to living under your government, as oposed to the people.... :D

smercer

02-06-2005, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Saddam was not going to use them when we attacked. He wanted to do just what he did, hide them. To make us look like the bad guy. Was he successful? Obviously if you are crying corruption.
[/COLOR]

Quote by website
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

Baghdad, Iraq - A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent exploded near a US military convoy in Baghdad, the US military said on Monday. It was the first confirmed finding of any of the banned weapons upon which the United States based its case for the Iraq war.

A bomb on the side of the road? Undetonated? A year after the war ended? US army would have been going by that site many times since the end of the war, and had not noticed it? also you say that "all he wanted to do was hide them", leaving them conveniently on the side of the road for US Army to find is a strange way of hiding them.

It being the first bomb found a year after it was found which was in a convenient place to find would have been found either during or immediately after the war.

Quote by website
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155mm artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesperson in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a US force convoy.

"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said. The incident occurred "a couple of days ago", he said. Two US soldiers were treated for minor injuries, Kimmitt added.

It says later in the article "Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat" so why did they not use those antidotes when they first found it on the side of the road? if they did not have them available, they would have sealed off the area, until a person/s with the antidote was available and disengaged the bomb. There would have been no injuries if they had used antidotes.

Quote by website
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

The Iraqi Survey Group is a US organisation whose task was to search for weapons of mass destruction after the ouster of Saddam Hussein in last year's invasion. Saddam claimed to have destroyed his chemical and biological weapons and UN inspectors had uncovered no major finds.

"The round was an old binary type requiring the mixing of two chemical components in separate sections of the cell before the deadly agent is produced," Kimmitt said. "The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece."

He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited. Many of the materials used for roadside bombs are believed to have been looted from arsenals after the collapse of the regime in April 2003.

Not the absolute proof the people of the world are after if it is "believed to have been there". How does that prove that WMD was even used in those arsenals.

Quote by website
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

First shell with sarin found

Dispersal would be far more effective if a shell containing nerve agent were fired from an artillery piece, he said. Kimmitt said he believed it was the first case in which US forces had found an artillery shell containing sarin.

"The former regime had declared all such rounds destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War," Kimmitt said. "Two explosive ordinance team members were treated for minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial detonation of the round."

Developed in the mid-1930s by Nazi scientists, a single drop of sarin can cause quick, agonising choking death. There are no known instances of the Nazis actually using the gas, but that didn't stop other nations from stocking it.

Nerve gases work by inhibiting key enzymes in the nervous system, blocking their transmission. Small exposures can be treated with antidotes, if administered quickly.

Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat.

I think that bomb was planted there specially for the US army to find, as it was so convenient being on the side of the road, without people not noticing it for a whole year.

I have not even looked at your other sources yet, but they are next for me to shoot down in flames.

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Give me a break, you can make a better point then that. The war was not about oil and you cannot provide any solid evidence that it was.
I think you have some back reading to do on this one
Ypu are wrong here, I asked if saddam ever had them. He used them in the Iran Iraq war, he used them on his own people. We have proof of that. The weapons inspectors ordered it destroyed after the first golf war. Much of it was not
[/COLOR] [/B]

Even if I do provide you with a website about it you would just say it is [what ever you are going to say to put down my sources] which would not necessarily be true.

smercer

02-06-2005, 05:09 AM

In regards to: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

It is the same story as the first website I looked at

I find that there are some paragraphs that have the same or very simalar wording to the first site I had a looked at.

Example:

Quote by website http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
Nerve gases work by inhibiting key enzymes in the nervous system, blocking their transmission. Small exposures can be treated with antidotes, if administered quickly.

Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat.

Quote by website http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html
Nerve gases work by inhibiting key enzymes in the nervous system, blocking their transmission. Small exposures can be treated with antidotes, if administered quickly.

Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat.

It seems to me that these two storys has been put together by one person (or group) and even though it is from different companies.

Since I have made my point in the last post and since both stories are of the same thing I won't bother with this one.

smercer

02-06-2005, 06:34 AM

In regards to: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/obermann/040520

At last something that is not worded the same.

Quote by website http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/obermann/040520

Chemical weapons found in Iraq

Andy Obermann
May 20, 2004

Last weekend, a chemical weapons attack was launched on American forces, knowingly or not. In a frightening scenario, Islamic terrorists in Iraq may have long last found a new weapon against our troops — Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

Gee, I'm all keyed up now.</sarcasm> an exaggeration to say the least.

Quote by website http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/obermann/040520

Many of you may be unaware of this, given the mainstream media's focus on Abu Ghraib and gas prices, so I'll fill you in:

According to military reports, a roadside bomb was set up near Baghdad International Airport last Saturday. The apparent goal, as is common in all such attacks, was to blindside an American convoy, but, in this case, a more heinous motive was revealed.

More exaggeration. it was a shell that you shoot out of artillery. with no timer, no motion sensors, or any thing like that.
also it was not an attack, it was sitting on the side of the road doing nothing, and the convoy stoped and examined it on the spot under no laboratory conditions and got injured for fooling around when it was not controlled.

Quote by website http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/obermann/040520

Apparently, the terrorists who set up this IED (improvised explosive device) used a munition containing the deadly chemical nerve agent, Sarin. American forces detonated the device, unaware of its contents. Two soldiers were treated for minor exposure, but, luckily, no one was seriously injured.

Jump into the deep end of the pool without checking? I'm sure that they would have had to take it back to the lab and open it in a air sealed tank.

I'm not military and even I have more common sense then that.

Quote by website http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/obermann/040520

Many partisan politicians and so called media "experts" have claimed that this was an isolated incident — that the terrorists randomly pulled this shell from a stockpile of conventional weapons and that this in now way reveals the truth about WMD in Iraq. I beg to differ.

It is erroneous to claim this Sarin artillery shell was a one in a million shot,

If it was shot, it would have exploded.

Quote by website http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/obermann/040520

pulled randomly from some stockpile of weapons. How foolish must one be? Given Saddam's past, why would anyone believe that this was just randomly floating around Iraq?

Question: Why was it floating around Iraq a year after the war without being found?

Quote by website http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/obermann/040520

Of course there are more of these! Why would Saddam be satisfied with only one? It just doesn't make sense.

Assumption!!!

Quote by website http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/obermann/040520

Yet this is what former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix would have you believe. In an interview last week, Blix claimed that this was a "random" occurrence, stating Iraq is a "dangerous place" and that this in no way represents the tip of the iceberg in the search for WMD. Gazi George, a former Iraqi scientist under Saddam Hussein (and chief scientist in charge of weapons programs, by the way), disagrees.

What a real find, So convenient</sarcasm>

Quote by website http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/obermann/040520

According to George, Iraq is a hotbed of such weapons. Moments after the story broke, George, in a Fox News interview claimed, "Saddam had those weapons...[they] are either buried underground or shipped out of the country to Syria and are being brought back...with the insurgents."

but not so sure. If he is the "chief scientist in charge of weapons programs" He would know exactly where to look if it was underground, and if it was shipped it would have been found by now by border patrols and customs.

Conclusion: I really don't think he has any thing to do with the WMD apart from the fact he was hired to say a few words in front of the camera.

Quote by website http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/obermann/040520

I tend to believe George over a UN puppet like Blix, but the truly compelling point of this whole situation is the fact that when Iraq declared its weapon stocks last year, the Hussein regime claimed no Sarin laced munitions in its arsenal — not one!

Interestingly enough, this Iraqi munition found last weekend contained Sarin. I wonder how that could be? Could it be that Saddam lied about his WMD stock? It wouldn't be much of a surprise — and I hope no one was gullible enough to fall for his lies and half-truths.

In combination with a shell found a couple weeks ago containing mustard gas (which Hussein claimed to have destroyed), this discovery seems to enforce the likelihood that Iraq did not comply with UN resolutions demanding the dismantling of WMD and retained the weapons they claimed not to have.

This would overrule the foregone conclusion of the mass media and liberals that Saddam had no such weapons, but don't hold your breath for any sort of repentance. They'll likely come up with some lame excuse to explain this occurrence — or ignore it all together (as appears to be happening).

Terrorists may not have known what they were dealing with when they used the Sarin shell in the attack against coalition forces, but my gut tells me that they did. A frightening scenario tossed about as of late is that these terrorists, in an attempt to derail that June 30 handover of power to the Iraqi Governing Council, have intensified their attacks by incorporating Saddam's WMD.

Perhaps they are getting desperate in the face of escalating coalition pressure to disarm — and are resorting to these weapons as a last hope of defeating American forces and ending Iraqi dreams of peace and liberty. Perhaps it was just dumb luck that they came across a chemical weapons stockpile.

Perhaps it is just a guess and more exaggeration. (he is gasbagging here)
he calls one bomb a stock pile? exaggeration!!!

Quote by website http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/obermann/040520

Either way, they now know they have access to WMD and appear to be more than willing use them.

It's a dangerous situation that we wished to avoid, but a reality of the enemy we face. They will stop at nothing to see that American forces die and are more than willing to use these terrible weapons to accomplish their goal.

Americans must be steadfast in their resolve, for this obstacle, like all of the others in Iraq, can and will be overcome.

Finally at the end of all that gasbagging and Major exaggeration. I liked the last two better.

smercer

02-06-2005, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
That is ironic, you do not watch the news because you think it is distored when the news is something that has to check it's sources because it has credibility to loose. Yet you find little hole in the wall personal home page type sites with no credibility to begin with safe places to get information from? Amazing.

wamboid has already said what I would have.
Originally posted by wamboid

As far as reliable sources, I currently trust no one. You have to consider all sources and then use your own common sense and good reasoning ability to determine who to believe. This may sound paranoid, but really, after Dan Rathers incident, who can you put total faith in.

Why don't you try it sometime?

PS: Learn to read between the lines. It helps.

august

02-06-2005, 07:50 AM

I apprecieate your advice. My first time here so I don't about the level of acceptance yet. Anyway I'll put the thread in here instead, just in case the other gets deleted.

If Bush is a good president then bad presidents simply don't exist.

I can't believe there are still those that believe Bush is good.

For God's Sake what does it TAKE for a president to be bad then? The fact that thousands of innocent people have died because of the administrations blatant lies doesn't matter to you does it?
Where is your integrity? You've got none. You're just standing there ready to kiss your authority's ass as long as there's an American flag wrapped around it.
Never mind that Bush was never elected to office in the first place, he was literally selected, yet him and all his supporters brag about his re-election victory, as if he'd deserved it.

There are so many things to say about the Bush administration in terms of what's gone bad that it's literally hard to know where to begin.
Basically what this entire Bush saga has taught us is that if you lie, you'll get rewarded for it, and if you lie more? Get more rewards!

And I'm sorry but Mr Bush had never even traveled abroad when he was selected for the presidency. Rather his first visits abroad were basically by launching his wars. I mean that's idiotic. Nobody would do that except an ignorant lunatic who had no clue whatsoever about how things worked outside the borders of Texas. I know this isn't a political forum, but, when 9/11 ocurred, nobody was thinking about Iraq except for Bush himself. Put that into equation when given the fact that Bush didn't even know what Africa was, he refered to Africa as a "nation". How can a guy who'd never traveled abroad be expected to lead a powerful nation like America and its foreign policies? I mean what type of standards are in place for the president? Even for casual jobs around the corner you're often required to be, at least, bi-lingual. Basically the precidency is about connections forget about any noble standards! Just stop lying by implying otherwise. Especially in this case.

The Iraq war was entirely wrong. It didn't make sense to anybody in the world to attack Iraq. How Bush managed to get approval for this war is beyond me, I mean the congress must either be totally blind or scared of retribution because any sane individual could tell that Powel, Rice, Cheney and Bush were blatantly lying in order to win their case. Al Qaida attacked America not Iraq. And so it would make sense you would think, to pursue Al Qaida and not Iraq, or Jordan, or Russia for that matter. None of the attackers were even FROM Iraq. The worst thing about the irrational attack was probably that it was motivated by revenge. Just sheer senseless revenge, as in "screw them, now they've attacked us we've got an excuse to screw them badly". Only after reality finally catched up with their delusions would thee bush administration begin to switch their case to "Democracy" and "Freeing the Iraqi people", you know before that there were about ten different reasons for going to Iraq and they changed about every week or so. Talk about flip-flopper... Since Bush still has support from the citizens, it must mean that it's OK to attack other countries for any made-up reason as long as you make up "better" reasons later!

You Bushies go ahead and keep supporting your beloved Bush, it just speaks volumes about your own level. This is just too much.

By the way is it possible to apply JavaScript style properties to function arguments before they've been converted to strings or objects? I mean while the arguments are still 'anonymous'.

Charles

02-06-2005, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by august
By the way is it possible to apply JavaScript style properties to function arguments before they've been converted to strings or objects? I mean while the arguments are still 'anonymous'. Yes.

Stephen Philbin

02-06-2005, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by MstrBob

No matter anyway you slice it, you're stereotyping a country consisting of hundreds of millions of citizens.

No Bob, I'm not. I merely stated my personal experience. As for making assumptions, well I don't do that either. Untill an American (or anyone for that matter) is abusive towards me for no reason, then I extend them the same courtesey I would anyone else. Probably why I am on such good and friendly terms with so many Americans (and others from accross the globe). I can't say the same for most of the British I know though. Few of them show the same restraint, but then if you had heard the abuse we get on a daily basis, you wouldn't blame them.

smercer

02-06-2005, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by august

If Bush is a good president then bad presidents simply don't exist.

I can't believe there are still those that believe Bush is good.

For God's Sake what does it TAKE for a president to be bad then? The fact that thousands of innocent people have died because of the administrations blatant lies doesn't matter to you does it?
Where is your integrity? You've got none. You're just standing there ready to kiss your authority's ass as long as there's an American flag wrapped around it.
Never mind that Bush was never elected to office in the first place, he was literally selected, yet him and all his supporters brag about his re-election victory, as if he'd deserved it.

There are so many things to say about the Bush administration in terms of what's gone bad that it's literally hard to know where to begin.
Basically what this entire Bush saga has taught us is that if you lie, you'll get rewarded for it, and if you lie more? Get more rewards!

And I'm sorry but Mr Bush had never even traveled abroad when he was selected for the presidency. Rather his first visits abroad were basically by launching his wars. I mean that's idiotic. Nobody would do that except an ignorant lunatic who had no clue whatsoever about how things worked outside the borders of Texas. I know this isn't a political forum, but, when 9/11 ocurred, nobody was thinking about Iraq except for Bush himself. Put that into equation when given the fact that Bush didn't even know what Africa was, he refered to Africa as a "nation". How can a guy who'd never traveled abroad be expected to lead a powerful nation like America and its foreign policies? I mean what type of standards are in place for the president? Even for casual jobs around the corner you're often required to be, at least, bi-lingual. Basically the precidency is about connections forget about any noble standards! Just stop lying by implying otherwise. Especially in this case.

The Iraq war was entirely wrong. It didn't make sense to anybody in the world to attack Iraq. How Bush managed to get approval for this war is beyond me, I mean the congress must either be totally blind or scared of retribution because any sane individual could tell that Powel, Rice, Cheney and Bush were blatantly lying in order to win their case. Al Qaida attacked America not Iraq. And so it would make sense you would think, to pursue Al Qaida and not Iraq, or Jordan, or Russia for that matter. None of the attackers were even FROM Iraq. The worst thing about the irrational attack was probably that it was motivated by revenge. Just sheer senseless revenge, as in "screw them, now they've attacked us we've got an excuse to screw them badly". Only after reality finally catched up with their delusions would thee bush administration begin to switch their case to "Democracy" and "Freeing the Iraqi people", you know before that there were about ten different reasons for going to Iraq and they changed about every week or so. Talk about flip-flopper... Since Bush still has support from the citizens, it must mean that it's OK to attack other countries for any made-up reason as long as you make up "better" reasons later!

You Bushies go ahead and keep supporting your beloved Bush, it just speaks volumes about your own level. This is just too much.

As far as bush being a bad president, we could have a debate on who was the worst president, though since many has died under his rule, he would one of the presidents on top of the list.

The other that would be on top of the list is his father (can't decide which should be number one), when he invaded Panama, so he could build a channel for ships to go through. I'm sure he could have made a negotiation with money, but instead accused them of having drug lords and for them to be brought to justice in USA. Sound familiar? Remember Bin Laden?

Like father, like son.

Edit: Found this: http://coat.ncf.ca/articles/links/how_to_start_a_war.htm

theuedimaster

02-06-2005, 07:43 PM

i agree with you... but big bush didn't build the panama canal man. The reasons of why he went there are of course, very, very corrupt, and smell with the stench of money and misuse of power.

theuedimaster

02-06-2005, 07:45 PM

theuedimaster

02-06-2005, 07:48 PM

Please don't stereotype Americans, because I am one of them, and I am on your side Smercer. I think most of your grievances are toward the American government, on which I have many grievances also. But along with you, I do dislike the people who do fit the stereotype greatly. There are many people in this country (the majority actually) that do think like that. But remember the minority that is oppoising the corruption that is going on right now. It is not fair to blame everyone. When you try to criticize a type of American you can be like.... "I especially dislike the Americans who support killing people because they like blood like vampires.. like... PeofEo!"... That type of criticism is A-OK. But don't be like "All Americans suck". That is not cool. It should be more like "Most Americans suck". Thats better. :D

Jupac

02-06-2005, 07:52 PM

I especially dislike the Americans who support killing people because they like blood like vampires.. like... PeofEo!".
I am one too and i will join the army so... stfu :D

Power to PEO!!!!

smercer

02-06-2005, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Jick
This thread is skating on very thin ice. I would suggest you guys keep it clean. I have had reason to close it for some time now but I'm trying to let it ride. I need not remind you guys that even though you may not find any of this offensive or insulting, there are some who might. We need to think about the whole community here.

I agree, though could I ask you to please change the title to something like "The George Bush Scandals"? That way we won't get people posting in anger from looking at the title. what do you think jeff?

Thanks

smercer

02-06-2005, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Please don't stereotype Americans, because I am one of them, and I am on your side Smercer. I think most of your grievances are toward the American government, on which I have many grievances also. But along with you, I do dislike the people who do fit the stereotype greatly. There are many people in this country (the majority actually) that do think like that. But remember the minority that is oppoising the corruption that is going on right now. It is not fair to blame everyone. When you try to criticize a type of American you can be like.... "I especially dislike the Americans who support killing people because they like blood like vampires.. like... PeofEo!"... That type of criticism is A-OK. But don't be like "All Americans suck". That is not cool. It should be more like "Most Americans suck". Thats better. :D

I did not mean to say "all Americans suck", and agree with you that I am sure that there are some good people like you over there, and absolutly hate the government system. (even in government there could be some good among the bad)

Jupac

02-06-2005, 08:09 PM

This thread isnt going any where , I vote for a close :rolleyes:

smercer

02-06-2005, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by theuedimaster
i agree with you... but big bush didn't build the panama canal man. The reasons of why he went there are of course, very, very corrupt, and smell with the stench of money and misuse of power.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559188/Panama_Canal.html

I thought it was him (i saw a video about it and could'nt remember who did build it. It was the Americans but.

smercer

02-06-2005, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Jupac
This thread isnt going any where , I vote for a close :rolleyes:

Just because you are not agreeing with what is said by all (except PeOfEo) is not a reason to say it "is not going any where" and certanly not a reason to close the thread.

Jupac

02-06-2005, 09:06 PM

You're just jealus that your Miliatary cant take down Iraq and OhhSama Bin LaDihn.

Jick

02-06-2005, 09:16 PM

After careful review of the thread and a couple re-reads of the past couple posts, I think the thread should be closed. However, considering that there is no cure for this political debate infection, I think I will keep the thread open for now. I really would like to keep all this stuff down to one thread so closing it now would, I believe, just spawn 10 more. So I will leave it for now but if it gets any more out of control then it will be closed without warning. Please keep your nasty/un-constructive comments to yourselves. Anyone who continues to post such unfriendly posts could find their membership in jeopardy. Please keep this thread clean. Thank you. :)

smercer

02-06-2005, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Jupac
You're just jealus that your Miliatary cant take down Iraq and OhhSama Bin LaDihn.

Jealousy does not have anything to do with it. I do not want Australian military any where except where they belong (protecting our borders). and that is what I think US military should be doing. (osama bin larden is a long story which I do not wish to go into).

Jupac

02-06-2005, 09:46 PM

What are you talking about you guys dont have borders ... You guys are a freaking island

smercer

02-06-2005, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Jupac
What are you talking about you guys dont have borders ... You guys are a freaking island

We get what we call "Boat People" who come by boat via Indonesia, and we get them by the hundreds and thousands.

for details on that http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos090401.shtml

Jupac

02-06-2005, 09:52 PM

I dont see why Indonesian would want to go to Austraila . Its going to be like WW1 where you guys LOSt LOL LOL lol

smercer

02-06-2005, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Jupac
I dont see why Indonesian would want to go to Austraila . Its going to be like WW1 where you guys LOSt LOL LOL lol

It does not have to be Indonesian, Afgans go to Indonesia and hop on a boat and come here.

Jupac

02-06-2005, 10:01 PM

doesnt matter. Still, why would they want to go to Australia ? To hunt kangaroos to sell to U.S.?

MstrBob

02-06-2005, 10:03 PM

Hasn't this left the realm of a well thought-out civil debate?

smercer

02-06-2005, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Jupac
doesnt matter. Still, why would they want to go to Australia ? To hunt kangaroos to sell to U.S.?

To avoid the war. they come as refuges, we can take some, but when they all come here, we can't pay for them all. so they come here illegaly.

Edit: this is the only good decision that John Howard ever made.

Jupac

02-06-2005, 10:15 PM

ok... How are you criticizing ohter nations leader when your own leader has only made one good decision

Jick

02-06-2005, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by MstrBob
Hasn't this left the realm of a well thought-out civil debate?Without a doubt!

Unfortunately the only thing I can do to stop it is close the thread but if I do that then it will just come back in 3 more threads. Political threads are like ants. You smash one and 6 come back. :p

smercer

02-06-2005, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Jupac
ok... How are you criticizing ohter nations leader when your own leader has only made one good decision

Thats a long story. and it all comes under treaties.

Anyway any nation that gets involed in wars deserves to be the international worry, therefore Bush is the person who sent troops to Iraq and Afganistan without proof so he is my concern and I have every right to be concerned.

It would be a different matter if I started talking about Switzerland.

smercer

02-06-2005, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Jick
Unfortunately the only thing I can do to stop it is close the thread but if I do that then it will just come back in 3 more threads. Political threads are like ants. You smash one and 6 come back. :p

Great!! I love political debates (when they are civil)

PeOfEo

02-06-2005, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by smercer
wamboid has already said what I would have.

Why don't you try it sometime?

PS: Learn to read between the lines. It helps. Smercer, omg! Dan rather is an example of why you should trust major media outlets! Becuase cbs lost their credibility after him. This is exactly wh y outlets have to check their sources. Your sources frequently have no credibility too loose so they should not be trusted!

PeOfEo

02-06-2005, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by smercer
Thats a long story. and it all comes under treaties.

Anyway any nation that gets involed in wars deserves to be the international worry, therefore Bush is the person who sent troops to Iraq and Afganistan without proof so he is my concern and I have every right to be concerned.

It would be a different matter if I started talking about Switzerland. without any proof? No proof? Smercer, what were the wars about? Give me your idea of what the wars were about?

PeOfEo

02-06-2005, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by smercer
I did not mean to say "all Americans suck", and agree with you that I am sure that there are some good people like you over there, and absolutly hate the government system. (even in government there could be some good among the bad) What form of government would you suggest? Communism? Then you would really have a police state :rolleyes:

PeOfEo

02-06-2005, 10:48 PM

Smercer: I do not have the free time on my hands to read through all of your posts where you go through articles... obviously you have plenty of free time. But anyways: As I said before, chemical and biological weapons are not made by the pint, if you are going to make a program to develop the stuff you are going to make more then one shell. So therefore if we found one it had to come from a stock pile that exists or existed somewhere. To say that this thing is nothing would be titanic like... you are just going to run into the ice berg because what you found was only the tip.

PeOfEo

02-06-2005, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by august
I apprecieate your advice. My first time here so I don't about the level of acceptance yet. Anyway I'll put the thread in here instead, just in case the other gets deleted.
[quote][b]
For God's Sake what does it TAKE for a president to be bad then? The fact that thousands of innocent people have died because of the administrations blatant lies doesn't matter to you does it? I am sorry, last itme I checked this war was targeting terrorists and the majority of the casualities were _not_innocent_people.

Never mind that Bush was never elected to office in the first place, he was literally selected, yet him and all his supporters brag about his re-election victory, as if he'd deserved it. ever hear of electoral college? Do you need it broken down for you? Bush won the first election, if he didn't he would not be in the white house.

There are so many things to say about the Bush administration in terms of what's gone bad that it's literally hard to know where to begin.
Basically what this entire Bush saga has taught us is that if you lie, you'll get rewarded for it, and if you lie more? Get more rewards! No, I believe you are thinking of clinton.

I know this isn't a political forum, but, when 9/11 ocurred, nobody was thinking about Iraq except for Bush himself.Wow, that is an obvious assertion that cannot be supported with any evidence.

Even for casual jobs around the corner you're often required to be, at least, bi-lingual. Bush speasks fluent spanish.

The Iraq war was entirely wrong. It didn't make sense to anybody in the world to attack Iraq. Saddam Hussain allowed Al Quida to opperate Immediatly after afganistan was invaded, top alquida leaders formed camps just to the south of baghdad. Also saddam Hussain supported palestiniant terrorism by paying off the families of palestinian suicde bobers. This is war on terror.
How Bush managed to get approval for this war is beyond me, I mean the congress must either be totally blind or scared of retribution because any sane individual could tell that Powel, Rice, Cheney and Bush were blatantly lying in order to win their case.Or the fact that there were clear links to terrorism, a credible threat.
Al Qaida attacked America not Iraq. And so it would make sense you would think, to pursue Al Qaida and not Iraq, or Jordan, or Russia for that matter. When did we attack russia? Also Alquida was operating in Iraq and this is not just a war on Alquida, but terrorism in general.
None of the attackers were even FROM Iraq. countless ones through history have been and Iraq supported them
The worst thing about the irrational attack was probably that it was motivated by revenge. Just sheer senseless revenge, as in "screw them, now they've attacked us we've got an excuse to screw them badly". Not really, it was more along the lines of making the world a safer place.
Talk about flip-flopper... Since Bush still has support from the citizens, it must mean that it's OK to attack other countries for any made-up reason as long as you make up "better" reasons later! If an overwhelming majority of the people were for the war efford maybe you should ask yourself if you are missing something.

You Bushies go ahead and keep supporting your beloved Bush, it just speaks volumes about your own level. This is just too much.Okay.

wamboid

02-06-2005, 11:15 PM

Whether in support of the war or not, there is one thing that people keep forgetting about why it started. Contrary to what is commonly stated as the major reason, it wasn't exactly because Bush, and almost everyone else, thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Rather, it was because Saddam would not prove to the world that he didn't have them. If the man wanted to avoid the war, all he had to do was let the inspectors back in and cooperate before the deadline.

smercer

02-06-2005, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Smercer, omg! Dan rather is an example of why you should trust major media outlets! Becuase cbs lost their credibility after him. This is exactly wh y outlets have to check their sources. Your sources frequently have no credibility too loose so they should not be trusted!

with the sources you posted, I found many holes as I stated with out even looking from other sources. This is an example of the reason why I say the big major media outlets just help cover up what really happened. No one questions them (like you do) for the reason that there are so many Media outlets been bought off by a very few people.

Ruppert Murdock owns Fox News and many other news outlets, which explains why two of the sources you posted have the same wording in some paragragphs.

I don't always know when I am wrong (as you do), But when I do know, I admit it and don't try to hide the fact that I made an error.

smercer

02-06-2005, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
without any proof? No proof? Smercer, what were the wars about? Give me your idea of what the wars were about?

http://coat.ncf.ca/articles/links/how_to_start_a_war.htm

smercer

02-06-2005, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
What form of government would you suggest? Communism? Then you would really have a police state :rolleyes:

You don't know what "Communism" means?

Quote from website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

As a social system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no private property and no social classes. In communism, all property is owned by the community as a whole, and all people enjoy equal social and economic status. Perhaps the best known principle of a communist society is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I think you mean Capitalism.

Quote from website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
in economics, a combination of economic practices that became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to buy and sell capital goods such as land, labor, and money (see finance and credit), in a free market (see trade), and relying on the enforcement by the state of private property rights rather than feudal obligations.

By the way, for your interest Communism comes from the word "Community", and Yes you can call me a communist, as am very community minded.

smercer

02-07-2005, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Smercer: I do not have the free time on my hands to read through all of your posts where you go through articles...

Right then, I'll just make sure you don't forget (or hope that we forget (yes, I'm on to you!!)) about replying to that. I am very interested to know how you are going to get your self out of this one.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

obviously you have plenty of free time.

all the time in the world...Except when I'm at work.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

But anyways: As I said before, chemical and biological weapons are not made by the pint, if you are going to make a program to develop the stuff you are going to make more then one shell. So therefore if we found one it had to come from a stock pile that exists or existed somewhere. To say that this thing is nothing would be titanic like... you are just going to run into the ice berg because what you found was only the tip.

Nice thoery. That does not explain how the bomb got there and why it was not discovered earlier.

smercer

02-07-2005, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by wamboid
Rather, it was because Saddam would not prove to the world that he didn't have them. If the man wanted to avoid the war, all he had to do was let the inspectors back in and cooperate before the deadline.

cooperate like a little puppy dog on a leash?<sarcasm>

He let them in, They saw his Weapons stock pile, which was not violating any rules, they went away, then said they wanted to look into his own personal things like his own bref case, his sleeping quarters etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to look in his bum for plans on how to make a nuclear bomb. </I am being serious> This was straight off the TV.

another story I heard from a website was that saddam obligated each time, but the inspecters just said he would not let them in.

Edit: that gives me an idea to use to write my own joke.

wamboid

02-07-2005, 08:19 AM

cooperate like a little puppy dog on a leash?<sarcasm>

He let them in, They saw his Weapons stock pile, which was not violating any rules, they went away, then said they wanted to look into his own personal things like his own bref case, his sleeping quarters etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to look in his bum for plans on how to make a nuclear bomb. </I am being serious> This was straight off the TV.

He invaded another country(Kuwait). There was a war. He was defeated. He accepted terms of surrender. If they wanted to check his bum, they could. Large price to take drastic steps and not have the power to back it up.

I must leave for work now. I hope this thread is still alive when I get home as I would like to post some radical plans for fixing our current problem with Iraq. I'm sure even those against the war agree that it is currently a problem.

PeOfEo

02-07-2005, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by smercer
with the sources you posted, I found many holes as I stated with out even looking from other sources. This is an example of the reason why I say the big major media outlets just help cover up what really happened. No one questions them (like you do) for the reason that there are so many Media outlets been bought off by a very few people. My sources did not have any misinformation within them.

Ruppert Murdock owns Fox News and many other news outlets, which explains why two of the sources you posted have the same wording in some paragragphs. omg, a guy owns them, it is not communism!

PeOfEo

02-07-2005, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by smercer
http://coat.ncf.ca/articles/links/how_to_start_a_war.htm Future: New Covert U.S. Agency to "Stimulate" Terrorists Give me a break!

The war is about terrorism smercer. We have clear evidence of it. You amaze me with your belief inconspiracy theories!

PeOfEo

02-07-2005, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by smercer
You don't know what "Communism" means?

I think you mean Capitalism. I mean what I said. Look at communist countries in the real world and tell me they are not police states.

By the way, for your interest Communism comes from the word "Community", and Yes you can call me a communist, as am very community minded. Okay, well thats good, because communism will only work on a communal level. It will fail on a large scale. Which is why I made the remark about a police state.

PeOfEo

02-07-2005, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by smercer
Right then, I'll just make sure you don't forget (or hope that we forget (yes, I'm on to you!!)) about replying to that. I am very interested to know how you are going to get your self out of this one. What the heck are you talking about 'get out of this'? Get myself out of what? Reply to your posts that point fingers and claim there is a conspiracy? I have responded to these things many times and you seem to provide sources with no credibility as evidence. I do not have to 'get out of' anything.

Nice thoery. That does not explain how the bomb got there and why it was not discovered earlier. I do not see why it needs to. It is not a theory either. Logic tells us that if you are going to create a system to produce biological or chemical weapons you are not going to produce one shell. You are going to mass produce it. Also you are probably going to spouts some remark about it being planted because you always light to drop a little conspiracy remark, but I can assure if you if our government wanted to plant weapons or something they would have planted a whole stock pile and it would be all over the news. This thing more likely slipped through the cracks and is part of a stock pile that exists somewhere. I would be willing to bet it was part of an Iraqi stock pile that was moved (we all know that saddam had weapons in the past because he has used them before and he was ordered to destroy many after the golf war, yet not all of them were destroyed. Infact an againg stock pile was even found in a bunker in the deseart).

PeOfEo

02-07-2005, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by smercer
cooperate like a little puppy dog on a leash?<sarcasm>

He let them in, They saw his Weapons stock pile, which was not violating any rules, they went away, then said they wanted to look into his own personal things like his own bref case, his sleeping quarters etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to look in his bum for plans on how to make a nuclear bomb. </I am being serious> This was straight off the TV.

another story I heard from a website was that saddam obligated each time, but the inspecters just said he would not let them in.

Edit: that gives me an idea to use to write my own joke. us weapons inspectors wanted to search Iraq for weapons after the golf war. It took them more then a year to find wmd because saddam was moving them from place to place and hiding them. Saddam was ordered to destroy them but we have proof that not all of them were destroyed because they found a bunker in the deasert. Saddam never cooperated with the inspectors, they barred sites in 96 and through them out in 98. They basically told the world to screw themselves. Then when we were attacked and we wanted to put inspectors back in Iraq to make sure he was not hiding anything we found missiles that were in violation (yet we did not find the scuds that he launched because that was way in violation and they were being hidden) and he still refused to fully cooperate with inspectors. To say that the Inspectors were asking too much is naieve. The fact was saddam was no cooperating with them at all so we had no way of knowing exactly what he had and we know he used weapons in the past. I think weapons still exist but they were shifted to siria or somewhere else. I know that we recovered one stock pile of aging weapons that were ordered destroyed after the first golf war in the deasert though and they had obviously not been destroyed. This is just another instance of saddam not cooperating.

Ultimater

02-07-2005, 08:30 PM

HI,

I feel offended from this thread, I'm American but
fly back and fourth between Israel and the United States.
I can just see this thread resulting in angry faces and reproach.
:leaves thread:

jeff_archer7

02-07-2005, 09:12 PM

I think you all need to calm down....

xept for PeOfEo (who is cool)

Ultimater... thanx for dropping by (lmao)

Did any of you actually read THIS FINE ARTICLE (http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011905D.shtml) or take the time to browse other sections of THIS INFORMATIVE WEBSITE (http://www.truthout.org)

Just checking.....:D

Jick

02-07-2005, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by jeff_archer7
I think you all need to calm down....Agreed. ;)

Stephen Philbin

02-07-2005, 09:36 PM

When any thread devolves into the posts of paragraph by paragraph (or sentence by sentence) quote and attempted rebuttal state, it's time to leave it and let it die.

Jupac

02-07-2005, 09:37 PM

ohhkk its not like we are the one that started ****. just like how we didnt start the war on terisom. We had to because the event on 9/11/2003 ok . Dont you ppl get it geez

jeff_archer7

02-07-2005, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Jick
Agreed. ;)

MY GOD....... someone actually agrees with ME, about bloody time

THANK YOU Jick, you have been officially placed on my list of 'cool people'

Jick

02-07-2005, 09:44 PM

*flattered* :p

PeOfEo

02-07-2005, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Mr Herer
When any thread devolves into the posts of paragraph by paragraph (or sentence by sentence) quote and attempted rebuttal state, it's time to leave it and let it die. No! This is us refuting eachother back and fourth. This is how any good debate works, except in person you would have a flow chart to keep track of what the other dude is saying, here we have the luxury of the quote button.

Jick

02-07-2005, 10:22 PM

Cool! :cool: A debate about debates. :p

Jupac

02-07-2005, 10:23 PM

O_o this is going to be fun

smercer

02-08-2005, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
My sources did not have any misinformation within them.

Originally posted by smercer

Quote by website
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/...1528363,00.html

Baghdad, Iraq - A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent exploded near a US military convoy in Baghdad, the US military said on Monday. It was the first confirmed finding of any of the banned weapons upon which the United States based its case for the Iraq war.

A bomb on the side of the road? Undetonated? A year after the war ended? US army would have been going by that site many times since the end of the war, and had not noticed it? also you say that "all he wanted to do was hide them", leaving them conveniently on the side of the road for US Army to find is a strange way of hiding them.

It being the first bomb found a year after it was found which was in a convenient place to find would have been found either during or immediately after the war.

Quote by website
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/...1528363,00.html

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155mm artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesperson in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a US force convoy.

"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said. The incident occurred "a couple of days ago", he said. Two US soldiers were treated for minor injuries, Kimmitt added.

It says later in the article "Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat" so why did they not use those antidotes when they first found it on the side of the road? if they did not have them available, they would have sealed off the area, until a person/s with the antidote was available and disengaged the bomb. There would have been no injuries if they had used antidotes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote by website
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/...1528363,00.html

The Iraqi Survey Group is a US organisation whose task was to search for weapons of mass destruction after the ouster of Saddam Hussein in last year's invasion. Saddam claimed to have destroyed his chemical and biological weapons and UN inspectors had uncovered no major finds.

"The round was an old binary type requiring the mixing of two chemical components in separate sections of the cell before the deadly agent is produced," Kimmitt said. "The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece."

He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited. Many of the materials used for roadside bombs are believed to have been looted from arsenals after the collapse of the regime in April 2003.

Not the absolute proof the people of the world are after if it is "believed to have been there". How does that prove that WMD was even used in those arsenals.

Quote by website
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/...1528363,00.html

First shell with sarin found

Dispersal would be far more effective if a shell containing nerve agent were fired from an artillery piece, he said. Kimmitt said he believed it was the first case in which US forces had found an artillery shell containing sarin.

"The former regime had declared all such rounds destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War," Kimmitt said. "Two explosive ordinance team members were treated for minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial detonation of the round."

Developed in the mid-1930s by Nazi scientists, a single drop of sarin can cause quick, agonising choking death. There are no known instances of the Nazis actually using the gas, but that didn't stop other nations from stocking it.

Nerve gases work by inhibiting key enzymes in the nervous system, blocking their transmission. Small exposures can be treated with antidotes, if administered quickly.

Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat.

I think that bomb was planted there specially for the US army to find, as it was so convenient being on the side of the road, without people not noticing it for a whole year.

Don't deny it. I know you are only trying wiggle out of the corner I got you in. In fact you sound so much like a politician, when the News presenter asks a difficult question, you'll say something like
Examples: "My sources did not have any misinformation within them.", "I do not have the free time on my hands to read through all of your posts where you go through articles..." (wasn't that a good one eh?), "but there is no corruption.", "There is no conspiracy.", "What are you talking about?" (A question with another question, without answering the first question), "calling this article a bunch of Bologna.", "That is ironic", "The cia had a big press conference about it. It is not just the president's word" (pass the buck, just like a real politician), "George Bush's policies are good for our country." (false praising), "I have not had a chance to read up on that website" (hey, isn't that equivalent to: 'err...um...I will have to get back to you on that one, because I do not have the answers (true or not) on me right now'), "but I bet most of it if not all of it is baseless" (critersie other party, make it *look* bad), "I will respond to the points later" (But needs to think about how to make it sound ridicules).

I can't stand someone who won't ever admit they are wrong.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

omg, a guy owns them, it is not communism!
For once you are absolutely right!!! It is not communism, It's Capitalism, where big business rules, and is controlled by profits, greed and the thought of power by few individuals.

smercer

02-08-2005, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
I mean what I said. Look at communist countries in the real world and tell me they are not police states.

Quote by website http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/freedomdef.html

"Freedom" is the absence of restraints according to the most common usage of the word in the United $tates and Europe (the West). We communists emphasize more the ability to accomplish something made possible through cooperation. Western "freedom" emphasizes choices of the individual, but communists emphasize the choices of the individual made possible through cooperation.

No, they are not police states.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Okay, well thats good, because communism will only work on a communal level. It will fail on a large scale. Which is why I made the remark about a police state.

Quote by website
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/freedomdef.html

If you are like most people of the industrialized countries of the "West," such as the United $tates, England, France, Germany, Canada, Switzerland etc. then you have bought into a twisted idea of "freedom."

...

Ask yourself these questions about your idea of "freedom." Then ask yourself whether you really have gone into this question deeply enough.

1. Were you aware that

the United $tates is the leader in the world in imprisonment per capita?
See the facts here if you have not seen them already. It means that the United $tates is the world's leading prison-state, with a higher percentage imprisoned than any other country.

2. Were you aware that our newspaper "MIM Notes" is censored
across the country when we attempt to send it into prisons? That public and publicly-funded colleges refuse our right to distribute our paper as do many other meeting places inviting the public for political discussion? See the summary here on prison. See the prison officials in their own words on why they censor MIM here.
3. Are you aware that the United $tates does more to arm and train fascists in the Third World than any other country? How does giving "freedom" to the rich of the West tally with support for death-squad military regimes across the globe? Does the relative freedom of the rich minority count more than the repression of the poor majority?

What you don't believe it? You better go see

CIA officers admit on videotape what they did to elected governments in Angola, Iran and Chile.

4. Do you generally believe what people say when they have their arms twisted behind their backs? Is a battered womyn really "free" to say that she still "loves" her batterer? What does it mean? We communists do not put much stock in that statement of "love" except relative to previous times in history such as "feudal society," when humyn relations had an even more coercive nature generally speaking.

Do you believe what a country other than the United $tates says in an election when the choice is a pro-Yankee candidate and an anti-Yankee candidate? Do you still believe it after the United $tates invades the country, as in the Dominican Republic in 1965? Do you believe it after the United $tates funds murderous thugs such as the contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s? We communists do not believe it. We do not believe things people say with guns to their heads. The twisted and predominant opinion in the West is exactly that --just on a large scale: believing what people say with guns to their heads and putting an emphasis on that instead of the coercive conditions.

5. Have you ever asked yourself about what communists have been saying about the relationship of freedom to exploitation? Were you aware that Stalin and Mao are both responsible for leading their societies into doubling the life expectancy of their peoples--yes including all their violent repression? Did you really believe China got to be a billion people with Mao shooting every other persyn the way the reactionaries make out? Do you believe any free people or persyn dies before his or her time by choice? How often? Sure, sometimes people take the chance to die in war, sometimes in heroic duty, sometimes even while driving a race car. These are chances a minority of the population likes to take.

oohdale

02-08-2005, 03:41 AM

Me too M8, he has enough to do over here. While your reading this say Hi to MattyP "Matt Purtell" for me at www.domainstate.com he is an Aussie.

Great M8:D

smercer

02-08-2005, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
What the heck are you talking about 'get out of this'? Get myself out of what? Reply to your posts that point fingers and claim there is a conspiracy? I have responded to these things many times and you seem to provide sources with no credibility as evidence. I do not have to 'get out of' anything.

See above post, where I had to "refresh your memory"

Originally posted by PeOfEo

I do not see why it needs to.

This is what PeOfEo really means:
"As long as there is 'some' connection to terrorists no matter what it looks like, or what is proven, I will still think it was terrorists, and I will always have tunnel vision on this idea and I have no intention of changing my beliefs."
Noticed that I used the word "beliefs"? Beliefs are not neccicaryly always true.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

It is not a theory either. Logic tells us that if you are going to create a system to produce biological or chemical weapons you are not going to produce one shell. You are going to mass produce it.

How do you know that it was saddam who made them? Just because it was found in middle of nowhere, or on the side of the road for all the world to see in Iraq, does not say that it really came from Saddam. It could have been smuggled in for all we know. If that same bomb was found in U$A would you blame Bush? (but then again you won't ever say anything against Bush)

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Also you are probably going to spouts some remark about it being planted because you always light to drop a little conspiracy remark, but I can assure if you if our government wanted to plant weapons or something they would have planted a whole stock pile and it would be all over the news.

It is all over the news (smokescreen).
Originally posted by PeOfEo

This thing more likely slipped through the cracks and is part of a stock pile that exists somewhere. I would be willing to bet it was part of an Iraqi stock pile that was moved (we all know that saddam had weapons in the past because he has used them before and he was ordered to destroy many after the golf war, yet not all of them were destroyed. Infact an againg stock pile was even found in a bunker in the deseart).

I bet that's an exaggeration. I bet that stock pile was NOT Weapons of mass destruction. Please show your sources on that.

jeff_archer7

02-08-2005, 04:53 AM

There were no WMD
the whole war was over OIL

there are worse people in this world who represent more of a threat than Sadam Hussein..... why don't we go after them?????

A. No friggin OIL in their countrys...

want an example??? Robert Mugabe (zimbabwe president)

smercer

02-08-2005, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
us weapons inspectors wanted to search Iraq for weapons after the golf war. It took them more then a year to find wmd because saddam was moving them from place to place and hiding them.

Was he caught red handed? No. So how do you have any proof that he moved them around? Haven't even found one bunker that showed evedence that they contained Weapons of mass destruction. There might be bunkers with normal weapons, and space to put Weapons of mass destruction, only because that space was created over the course of the Iraq war. And they did not find any weapons of mass destruction before, during, or after the war until 1 year after the war and even that is questionable.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Saddam was ordered to destroy them but we have proof that not all of them were destroyed because they found a bunker in the deasert.

A bunker with nothing in it? or a bunker with normal weapons? Either is not unusual. You are not very specific.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Saddam never cooperated with the inspectors, they barred sites in 96 and through them out in 98. They basically told the world to screw themselves. Then when we were attacked and we wanted to put inspectors back in Iraq to make sure he was not hiding anything we found missiles that were in violation (yet we did not find the scuds that he launched because that was way in violation and they were being hidden)

and your proof of "found missiles that were in violation" I cannot find.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

and he still refused to fully cooperate with inspectors. To say that the Inspectors were asking too much is naieve. The fact was saddam was no cooperating with them at all so we had no way of knowing exactly what he had and we know he used weapons in the past. I think weapons still exist but they were shifted to siria or somewhere else. I know that we recovered one stock pile of aging weapons that were ordered destroyed after the first golf war in the deasert though and they had obviously not been destroyed. This is just another instance of saddam not cooperating.

What type of missiles? and yes the Weapons Inspectors do ask too much. when showing weapons on TV they show weapons that are NOT Weapons of mass destruction.

I remember a time that they showed on TV a seine where there was a room of rifles, and complained about them being in the hands of terrorists, but when the "rifles" were examined they were actually air guns.

Quote from website http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-02.htm

'The Public Must Look to What is Missing From the Report'
by Scott Ritter

Tony Blair's government is heralding the Hutton report as a victory, since it absolves it of any wrongdoing regarding the "sexing up" of intelligence about the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The Hutton report was released at the same time as the former head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, testified before the US Congress that there appear to be no WMD in Iraq, and that the intelligence was "all wrong". Given this, the Hutton findings have taken on an almost Alice in Wonderland aura. By focusing on a single news story broadcast by the BBC, Hutton has created a political smokescreen behind which Blair is seeking to distract the British public from the harsh reality that his government went to war based on unsustained allegations that have yet to be backed up with a single piece of substantive fact. Lord Hutton was in a position to expose this; he chose not to. It is left to the public, therefore, to carefully examine his report, looking not for what it contains but for what is missing.

A review of testimony submitted to the inquiry elicits a single reference to Operation Rockingham, a secretive intelligence activity buried inside the Defense Intelligence Staff, which dealt with Iraqi WMD and activities of the UN special commission (UNSCOM). This acknowledged that Rockingham managed the interaction between David Kelly, the weapons expert whose suicide led to the Hutton inquiry, and the UN. But Lord Hutton dug no further into this. If he had, some interesting insight would have been provided on several issues of concern, including the possibility of the "shaping" of UN intelligence data by Rockingham to serve the policy objectives of its masters in the Foreign Office and the joint intelligence committee.

Dr Kelly became Rockingham's go-to person for translating the often confusing data that came out of UNSCOM into concise reporting that could be forwarded to analysts in the British intelligence community, as well as to political decision-makers. Rockingham was in a position to know that, increasingly, the facts emerging from inside Iraq supported Baghdad's contention that there was no longer a biological weapons program in Iraq, or any hidden biological weapons or agents.

But this data received little or no attention inside Rockingham. Dr Kelly was not only an active participant in the investigations in Iraq, but also a key player in shaping the findings to the British government. He was also one of the key behind-the-scenes advocates of the government position. For some time, the government had allowed him unfettered access to the press, where he spoke, often on the record, about his work with UNSCOM

Any probing of Rockingham by Lord Hutton would have exposed it for what it had become - a big player in the shaping of information regarding Iraq's WMD inside the government and, through its media connections, in shaping public opinion as well.

Given Rockingham's penetration of UNSCOM at virtually every level, there existed a seamless flow of data from Iraq, through New York, to London, carefully shaped from beginning to end by people working not for the UN security council, but for the British government. Iraq's guilt, preordained by the government, became a self-fulfilling prophesy that only collapsed when occupied Iraq failed to disgorge that which Rockingham, and the rest of the UK intelligence community, had said must exist.

Scott Ritter was formerly chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq

smercer

02-08-2005, 05:51 AM

Delete me.

omnicity

02-08-2005, 06:03 AM

How can anyone trust the US government?
Since you only have two parties it is little more than a game of tennis - the Republicans get two terms, then the Democrats get two terms. That is not democracy.

I don't think we are much better in the UK - I think that Tony Blair let us all down badly, but then he was only voted for by a few thousand people in one constituency - the vast majority of the country have no say in his appointment. That's not democracy either.

smercer

02-08-2005, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by omnicity

How can anyone trust the US government?
Since you only have two parties it is little more than a game of tennis - the Republicans get two terms, then the Democrats get two terms. That is not democracy.

That is a very good way of describing it. it's the same as Australia, with either Liberal or Labor. each complain of the other, but in reality they are both as bad as each other.

all other parties either do not get publicized or are scrutinized much like PeOfEo does with my Political posts.

If you listened to Pauline Hanson's Maiden speech, you would say it was nothing like what they call her.

For instance, She wanted to stop immigrants coming into Australia to stay so that we could bring down the unemployment rate and then allow them to come in again when it got to a satisfactory level.

The other thing she wanted to do was to stop reverse racism, because The government now pay Aboriginals just because they are Aboriginal, gives them rights we white Australians do not have etc.

they now call her "Racist"

Originally posted by omnicity

I don't think we are much better in the UK - I think that Tony Blair let us all down badly, but then he was only voted for by a few thousand people in one constituency - the vast majority of the country have no say in his appointment. That's not democracy either.

Look for other options. I'm sure there would be Independent people going for election.

omnicity

02-08-2005, 07:07 AM

I think you missed my point. The US president is voted for by the entire country, the British Prime Minister is chosen by his own party, out of those MPs who have been elected. Therefore to get rid of him you have to live in sedgefield (in this case), but having done so you have no say over who replaces him.
But then you have no real say over anything - all of the parties promise 'targeted' 'responsible' spending on Health, Education etc, and the lowest possible taxes. Along comes something new and you just have to hope that you can persuade your MP to vote the way that you want. In this day and age we should be able to have public referenda on all issues - we would never have supported Bush and his phoney war on Iraq if we had been able to vote on it.

Incidentally when one of the previous posts stated that none of the deaths in Iraq were of innocent people, how does he rate the troops? Few of them support the occupation, but they are forced to die for whatever it is that we are supposed to be getting. (And it certainly isn't World Peace.)

smercer

02-08-2005, 07:30 AM

Written 21 September 2002
From: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/print_article.php4?article_id=4670
The arsenal in US and British hands
THE UNITED States has 10,600 nuclear warheads in its stockpile. That includes 550 intercontinental ballistic missiles with 1,700 warheads. There are also 18 Trident nuclear powered submarines which carry a total of 3,120 warheads, 320 Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles, 94 B-52 bombers and 21 B-2 bombers. The B-2s carry the US's new "earth penetrating" nuclear bomb. The US's chief ally is Britain, which has around 200 warheads with four nuclear submarines which can carry 64 nuclear missiles.

Both these countries are willing to use nuclear weapons. US defence policy now authorises the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, reported the Los Angeles Times earlier this year. The paper said that US policy is now that nuclear weapons could be used when there is an unexpected development in a conventional war. New Labour's 1998 Strategic Defence Review allows "the limited use of nuclear weapons".

The US is still the only state to have actually used nuclear weapons in war. The US exploded an untested uranium bomb above the Japanese city of Hiroshima in August 1945. It killed 140,000 out of a population of 350,000. The US then dropped a nuclear bomb on another Japanese city, Nagasaki, killing 70,000 out of 270,000 inhabitants.

Other nuclear powers
Five nuclear powers dominate the UN's security council, which authorises military action against other countries. As well as the US and Britain these are Russia, China and France.

Russia has a declining stock of nuclear weapons, but is still the world's second largest nuclear power. It has 8,400 nuclear warheads. That includes 706 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 14 operational nuclear submarines and 78 bombers. France has 288 warheads including 60 bombers capable of carrying nuclear missiles, and three nuclear submarines.

There is one state in the Middle East that has been secretly developing nuclear weapons - Israel. It has up to 200 nuclear weapons. It refuses to let in any weapons inspectors at all. Yet the US gives Israel $3 billion in military and economic "aid" every year. Between 1980 and 1995 it bought or "received" 260 F-16 fighter aircraft from the US which can drop nuclear bombs.

Former Pentagon and US state department officials told the Washington Post in June this year that Israel was also arming three submarines with missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

The US sells weapons to both sides, after abandoning an arms embargo on both countries in September last year. Russia also sells arms to India, and China sells to Pakistan. France sells Mirage jets to both air forces.

The real makers of biological bombs
THE US is the world's biggest investor in "biodefence". It refuses to allow any inspections of its research. The campaign group GeneWatch UK last month condemned the US secrecy. "Investment in biodefence may look like a screen for the development of weapons that are intended for offensive use," it said. "Because the US have been unwilling to declare programmes in the past, their motives inevitably come under scrutiny."

During former US president Clinton's administration the US secretly built and tested a model of an anthrax bomb. The US also constructed a facility in Nevada where bacteria could have been produced for use in biological weapons, according to a New York Times report in September last year.

Bush's administration whipped up hysteria in the wake of 11 September over letters contaminated with anthrax that killed five people in the US. The anthrax spores are now suspected to have come from the US's own research facilities.

The rogue state Bush supports
"Iraq has answered a decade of United Nations demands with a decade of defiance. Are UN resolutions to be honoured and enforced or cast aside without consequence?" Those were the words George Bush used last week when addressing the UN general assembly. Tony Blair used the same argument in his TUC speech.

Talk of the "flouting" of UN resolutions is a fig leaf. One state in the world has broken many, many more UN resolutions than Iraq. Yet Bush and Blair are not threatening any action against it. That state, Israel, is the US's key ally in the oil-rich Middle East. Israel has ridden roughshod over UN resolutions since its creation in 1948.

The UN passed a partition plan for Palestine in 1947. It gave 55 percent of Palestine to Israeli settlers, who were only 30 percent of the population. This was not enough for the Israelis. Armed militias ethnically cleansed 750,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948. Israel grabbed 77 percent of Palestine. The UN general assembly passed Resolution 194 in response. It calls for the Palestinians to be allowed to return to their homes. This resolution has been reaffirmed at least 28 times since 1948. Israel has ignored it every time.

Israel invaded and took over the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967. The UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 242 in response. This called for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". Israeli troops are still occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip 35 years later. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 338 in 1973 calling for the implementation of Resolution 242. After the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada, or uprising, in September 2000 the UN Security Council again reaffirmed both Resolutions 242 and 338. These resolutions are both fully binding, and can be enforced by sanctions and military action.

Between 1955 and 1992 there were, in all, 65 UN Security Council resolutions passed against Israel. All of them were ignored. This pattern continues today. Israel this year invaded the Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin and Palestinian cities that were supposed to be Palestinian-controlled under the peace process.

The UN Security Council passed resolutions calling for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops. Israel did not withdraw. The UN Security Council passed a resolution in April to send a UN fact-finding mission into Jenin to discover whether the Israelis had massacred people there. Israel refused to allow a UN group into the camp.

Despite its flouting of UN decisions and international law there has been no military or economic action threatened against Israel. This has allowed Israel's leaders, including the current hardline prime minister Ariel Sharon, to tighten the noose around the neck of the Palestinians. The US's war on terror and its backing for Sharon are threatening another catastrophe for the Palestinian people. "After 11 September the Israeli ruling class thought it was even more right, and that it could wage war without limit," says Michel Warschawski, an Israeli revolutionary socialist.

"They said, 'We are waging the same war as Bush. We are in the front line of the war against terrorism. We have the US with us.' There has been an unprecedented dehumanisation. The Palestinians are not seen as human beings but as terrorists. What held Israel back previously was international pressure. But today Washington is following Israel. The framework of the war has become Israeli-Arab. Sharon is pushing for war against the Arabs and Iraq. According to the journalist George Novak, Sharon called on the US to wage war against Saudi Arabia and Egypt during a closed meeting of the foreign affairs committee in the US Senate.

"The ultimate objective is to expel the Palestinians. There are terrifying slogans appearing. There is huge graffiti at Jerusalem bus station saying, 'Holocaust for the Arabs', a car sticker published by the governing parties says, 'Peace is a catastrophe - we want war.' And everywhere you see posters: 'Jordan is the Palestinian state, transfer now.' The 'transfer', meaning ethnic cleansing, is the line of four of the eight parties in the governing coalition. The situation is getting worse month by month. Finally, Israel is pushing for 'the nuclear option'. Sharon declared a month ago, 'If the Iraqis fire missiles on Tel Aviv, and even if there are no victims, we will use nuclear weapons.' Since Bush's declaration on the 'axis of evil' Sharon has pushed to attack Iraq. The question is not whether it will happen but when and how."

The record on chemical weapons
DURING THE Vietnam War the US dropped 17 million gallons of defoliant. The Agent Orange defoliant contained one of the most toxic substances known to humanity, dioxin. It caused massive deformities in children long after the US left Vietnam. The US also dropped napalm on Vietnamese villages.

The US experimented with napalm to ensure it clung to human flesh and couldn't be washed off. The US World Trade Journal reported in 1966, "Today when the American troops enter the villages of South Vietnam they make it a habit to throw gas grenades into the shelters. "Obviously there are some innocent victims."

Britain used mustard gas and white phosphorus incendiaries in the First World War, along with Germany and France. Israel used phosphorus bombs during its invasion of the Lebanon in 1982 in which 12,000 Lebanese civilians were killed. "Dr Shamaa found that two five day old twins had already died but they were still on fire," reported journalist Robert Fisk. "'I had to take the babies and put them in buckets of water to put out the flames,' she said.'When I took them out half an hour later they were still burning'."

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein felt he could easily get away with using poison gas against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians during his eight-year war with Iran that started in 1980. There was no outcry from Western governments. US military observers on the ground at the time knew exactly what was happening, and approved of it.

smercer

02-08-2005, 07:59 AM

Quote by website http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/000423.html

Journo claims proof of WMD lies
John Pilger says he has evidence the war against Iraq was based on a lie that could cost George W. Bush and Tony Blair their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them. Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.

UPDATE: The tape is very likely real, the U.S. Dept. of State website has the interview online with the same quote (click this article's read more link for just the question and quote in context). This is the smoking gun that proves Saddam did not pose a threat conventionally or with WMDs, even before 9/11.

The quote(s) in question are in bold:

QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?

SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

[...]

QUESTION: (summarized) Minister Moussa, how big a threat is Iraq right now? It seems that the Secretary is trying to have it both ways. Either the country has been diminished by ten years of sanctions or it's still threat that we have to worry about.

FOREIGN MINISTER MOUSSA: For us, I don't see that threat, but if you ask the Gulf regions and countries of that area they will they would continue to feel that and they say it publicly. The question is not rhetorical. The question is not to have some headlines. It's a very serious situation. We will continue to deal with that situation in a way that ensures stability and justice. Therefore, we will have a lot to say after the round of talks ...

SECRETARY POWELL: May I just add a p.s. that if I was a Kuwaiti and I heard leaders in Baghdad claiming that Kuwait is still a part of Iraq and it's going to be included in the flag and the seal, if I knew they were continuing to try to find weapons of mass destruction, I would have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States or at others. Yes, I think we should...he has to be contained until he realizes the errors of his ways.

The saving Israel argument just went up in flames. Heck, the whole lie just went up in flames and this is the gasoline that will get the big media's attention. The irony is that Powell is the one who went to the UN to say that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat.

My only speculation at this time is: will Powell take the fall alone or will it bring the whole administration down?

Pity the links in the website are dead now. However I did a search on the statement:

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

In Google and found 1950 pages on it. (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22He+has+not+developed+any+significant+capability+with+respect+to+weapons+of+mass+destruction.+He +is+unable+to+project+conventional+power+against+his+neighbors.%22&btnG=Search&meta=)
Edit: I can't make the link work properly so you would have to copy and paste the statement into the search engine.

wamboid

02-08-2005, 08:14 AM

No time to post what I really want, real life is just too complicated this week to have any time.

About the roadside bomb:
I think you are too worried about it being found a year after the war ended. One of Bush's big "blunders" according to his political opponents is that he declared the war to be over too soon. My nephew just got home from there. He said there was never a day that he didn't hear something like gunfire or rpg rounds or something that would make you take cover. It could have only been in that particular spot for only a few hours. Who knows, I wasn't there, you weren't there, cbs wasn't there. Anyone other than those who put it there would only be speculating.

About that article claiming basically all American wars were started with conspiracies:
Come on, you are scaring me now. Sometimes I'm paranoid, but that is getting a bit ridiculous. Of course, it could have been taken further. I don't remember anything about the Revoulutionary War. Do enough creative research and you can find the same kinds of things starting practically every war by practically every country.

Gonna be late for work, later. (I really have a good plan for Iraq if I ever have time to post)

smercer

02-08-2005, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by omnicity
I think you missed my point. The US president is voted for by the entire country, the British Prime Minister is chosen by his own party, out of those MPs who have been elected. Therefore to get rid of him you have to live in sedgefield (in this case), but having done so you have no say over who replaces him.
But then you have no real say over anything - all of the parties promise 'targeted' 'responsible' spending on Health, Education etc, and the lowest possible taxes. Along comes something new and you just have to hope that you can persuade your MP to vote the way that you want. In this day and age we should be able to have public referenda on all issues - we would never have supported Bush and his phoney war on Iraq if we had been able to vote on it.

Oh okay...I am in the same boat as you as we are under the same queen, so I know what you are geting at now.

Originally posted by omnicity

Incidentally when one of the previous posts stated that none of the deaths in Iraq were of innocent people, how does he rate the troops? Few of them support the occupation, but they are forced to die for whatever it is that we are supposed to be getting. (And it certainly isn't World Peace.)
Very true.

"none of the deaths in Iraq were of innocent people" is also completely untrue. How is it possible to drop so many bombs on Iraq without killing Innocent people?

oohdale

02-08-2005, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by wamboid
No time to post what I really want, real life is just too complicated this week to have any time.

About the roadside bomb:
I think you are too worried about it being found a year after the war ended. One of Bush's big "blunders" according to his political opponents is that he declared the war to be over too soon. My nephew just got home from there. He said there was never a day that he didn't hear something like gunfire or rpg rounds or something that would make you take cover. It could have only been in that particular spot for only a few hours. Who knows, I wasn't there, you weren't there, cbs wasn't there. Anyone other than those who put it there would only be speculating.

About that article claiming basically all American wars were started with conspiracies:
Come on, you are scaring me now. Sometimes I'm paranoid, but that is getting a bit ridiculous. Of course, it could have been taken further. I don't remember anything about the Revoulutionary War. Do enough creative research and you can find the same kinds of things starting practically every war by practically every country.

Gonna be late for work, later. (I really have a good plan for Iraq if I ever have time to post)

We think a like, there isn't enough space on this server to debate this subject. Just be thankful that those noises of gun fire, aren't being heard from your house is all I can add to this subject.

smercer

02-08-2005, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by wamboid

No time to post what I really want, real life is just too complicated this week to have any time.

About the roadside bomb:
I think you are too worried about it being found a year after the war ended.

I don't think so at all. I made very logical statements. those are:
1) Why was the bomb not found earlier if it was on the side of the road? One of Peo's sources said it was near the international airport, which means it was a very busy road, so it had to be seen by someone in US Army. And someone would have seen whoever it was handling the bomb when they put it there.

2) one bomb could come from anywhere if it was smuggled in.

3)
It says later in the article "Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat" so why did they not use those antidotes when they first found it on the side of the road? if they did not have them available, they would have sealed off the area, until a person/s with the antidote was available and disengaged the bomb. There would have been no injuries if they had used antidotes.
4)
Not the absolute proof the people of the world are after if it is "believed to have been there". How does that prove that WMD was even used in those arsenals.

5)

I'm sure that they would have had to take it back to the lab and open it in a air sealed tank.

I'm not military and even I have more common sense then that.

6)
If he is the "chief scientist in charge of weapons programs" He would know exactly where to look if it was underground, and if it was shipped it would have been found by now by border patrols and customs.

Conclusion: I really don't think he has any thing to do with the WMD apart from the fact he was hired (Edit: or tortured or threatened) to say a few words in front of the camera.

come on Peo, please provide an answer. I am not going to drop this until you do.

Originally posted by wamboid

About that article claiming basically all American wars were started with conspiracies:
Come on, you are scaring me now. Sometimes I'm paranoid, but that is getting a bit ridiculous. Of course, it could have been taken further. I don't remember anything about the Revoulutionary War. Do enough creative research and you can find the same kinds of things starting practically every war by practically every country.

No, not every country. So far only Romans (ancient history), Germany, Japan, British, Australia, USA, Persians(ancient history), Egypt(ancient history), ...Wait a minute, I am not going to get into a History lesson.

Any way there are not that many.

PeOfEo

02-08-2005, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by smercer

Don't deny it. I know you are only trying wiggle out of the corner I got you in. WHAT!? What corner? There is no corner. You have done nothing to disprove any of my sources. You cannot dispute the fact that this thing was there and logic dictates that this sis not the only one.

I can't stand someone who won't ever admit they are wrong.
I am not wrong, there is no conspiracy. You seem to think there always is. It is always the major government making up stuff and the major news is in it with them trying to convince the masses with you it seems. It is just not true.

For once you are absolutely right!!! It is not communism, It's Capitalism, where big business rules, and is controlled by profits, greed and the thought of power by few individuals. Ugh, I do not even know where to start with this one. The fact that you would rather have the government manage the funds rather than yourself turns you into a walking contradiction.

PeOfEo

02-08-2005, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by smercer
No, they are not police states. More of these websites with no credibility. I can see Bias right away when they use $ for the s in united states. Communism cannot work on a large scale, history has proven that. When you have communism on a large scale we have green shoes. Communism has failed to work without corruptions and loss of efficiency in every large country it has been used in. It is a police state because the government controls everything. The fact that you are for something like that is a bit of a contradiction.

PeOfEo

02-08-2005, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by smercer
See above post, where I had to "refresh your memory"

This is what PeOfEo really means:
"As long as there is 'some' connection to terrorists no matter what it looks like, or what is proven, I will still think it was terrorists, and I will always have tunnel vision on this idea and I have no intention of changing my beliefs."
Noticed that I used the word "beliefs"? Beliefs are not neccicaryly always true. some connection? Saddam Funded it and let it operate within our borders. That is a little more then 'some' connection. :rolleyes:

How do you know that it was saddam who made them? Just because it was found in middle of nowhere, or on the side of the road for all the world to see in Iraq, does not say that it really came from Saddam. It could have been smuggled in for all we know. If that same bomb was found in U$A would you blame Bush? (but then again you won't ever say anything against Bush) Wow um, he had the facilities in the past, he used them during the Iran Iraq war, and he used them on his own people. I cant believe you are challenging if saddam made weapons. If the same bomb were found I would not blame Bush. The same bomb would have still been made in Iraq, the weapons found were saddam's. If it were a weapon made in the us I would say it is a us weapon, but that is not Bush's fault as we are not producing things like this anymore.

I bet that's an exaggeration. I bet that stock pile was NOT Weapons of mass destruction. Please show your sources on that. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36546 This is not what I was looking for... I read another article before on world net daily about other stock piles being found that were leftovers from past wars that were ordered to be destroyed but were not destroyed, but rather buried in bunkers. Here is another article that is somewhat interesting http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

Here is a fact: Saddam Had weapons in the past, he used them in the past, he was ordered to destroy them in the past, but there are still weapons that the are not accounted for, the un's number for those found (after the gulf war) and those destroyed do not match from what I have seen and read.

PeOfEo

02-08-2005, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by jeff_archer7
There were no WMD
the whole war was over OIL

there are worse people in this world who represent more of a threat than Sadam Hussein..... why don't we go after them?????

A. No friggin OIL in their countrys...

want an example??? Robert Mugabe (zimbabwe president) This war was not about oil... if we wanted oil we would have dropped sanctions against saddam. This war was about terrorism.

PeOfEo

02-08-2005, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by smercer
Was he caught red handed? No. So how do you have any proof that he moved them around? Haven't even found one bunker that showed evedence that they contained Weapons of mass destruction. There might be bunkers with normal weapons, and space to put Weapons of mass destruction, only because that space was created over the course of the Iraq war. And they did not find any weapons of mass destruction before, during, or after the war until 1 year after the war and even that is questionable. Yes, he was caught red handed, and loads of weapons were found after the first golf war, he was evading us and not cooperating and it took us a considerable ammount of time to find the weapons.

A bunker with nothing in it? or a bunker with normal weapons? Either is not unusual. You are not very specific. read up on some of my other posts.

and your proof of "found missiles that were in violation" I cannot find. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2756987.stm
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/27/211021.shtml
Also there is the fact that scuds (which we also have informationt hat he was shifting around the launchers when the inspectors were around) were launched when we first entered the country. Scuds are inaccurate luckily.

What type of missiles? and yes the Weapons Inspectors do ask too much. when showing weapons on TV they show weapons that are NOT Weapons of mass destruction. scud, al sammud II, and the al-Fatah. The inspectors clearly do not ask too much! If you put limits on them then you allow the guy to hide things. Of course the sutff on tv is not going to be the stuff in question, I do not think the news media would be able to get close to it, that would raise some eyebrows about security.

PeOfEo

02-08-2005, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by omnicity
How can anyone trust the US government?
Since you only have two parties it is little more than a game of tennis - the Republicans get two terms, then the Democrats get two terms. That is not democracy.

I don't think we are much better in the UK - I think that Tony Blair let us all down badly, but then he was only voted for by a few thousand people in one constituency - the vast majority of the country have no say in his appointment. That's not democracy either. The united states is a democratic republic. There are two schools of thought, liberal and conservative. One party represents the liberals and the other the conservatives. The people vote for a candidate to run for the major parties in the primaries and then the candidate runs for the party against the other party. Have idea's for a better solution? A two party system is the only effective way, if you have more then two parties no candidate is going to get a majority of the population behind him and then the legislature would get to pick.

PeOfEo

02-08-2005, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by smercer
I don't think so at all. I made very logical statements. those are:
1) Why was the bomb not found earlier if it was on the side of the road? it was put there by insurgents as a trap, it was not sitting on the road since the start of the war...
One of Peo's sources said it was near the international airport, which means it was a very busy road, so it had to be seen by someone in US Army. And someone would have seen whoever it was handling the bomb when they put it there. none of my posts said that, that might have been in an article. Just because it is near an airport does not mean there is a constant stream of traffic. If you look at the baghdadcam on fox nows at some times of the day that major street has no one in it. You are extrapilating too much.

2) one bomb could come from anywhere if it was smuggled in.
but it did not need to be.
3)It says later in the article "Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat" so why did they not use those antidotes when they first found it on the side of the road? if they did not have them available, they would have sealed off the area, until a person/s with the antidote was available and disengaged the bomb. There would have been no injuries if they had used antidotes. What do antitdotes have to do with anything. Even if there are antidotes, that does not mean they are on hand. I still do not see how antidotes change the fact that there was a bomb there. What a weak and meaningless point.

4) Not the absolute proof the people of the world are after if it is "believed to have been there". How does that prove that WMD was even used in those arsenals. I do not know what this is in reference to.

5) I'm sure that they would have had to take it back to the lab and open it in a air sealed tank.
I'm not military and even I have more common sense then that. Again, I am not sure exactly what you are talking about. I am assuming the roadside bomb, but which article.

6) If he is the "chief scientist in charge of weapons programs" He would know exactly where to look if it was underground, and if it was shipped it would have been found by now by border patrols and customs.

Conclusion: I really don't think he has any thing to do with the WMD apart from the fact he was hired (Edit: or tortured or threatened) to say a few words in front of the camera. border patrol? In Iraq? What border patrol? Tons of Sirian's managed to slip over the broder to suppliment the insurgents.

No, not every country. So far only Romans (ancient history), Germany, Japan, British, Australia, USA, Persians(ancient history), Egypt(ancient history), ...Wait a minute, I am not going to get into a History lesson. I am not sure that I agree with that.

PeOfEo

02-08-2005, 09:45 PM

Bottom Line: Saddam allowed terrorist camps to operate after the fall of the taliban. Saddam paid off the families of palestinian sucide bombers, these are the people who are attacking our ally, Israel. Saddam possesed, made, and used weapons of mass destruction in the past during the Iran Iraq War, and he used them on his own people. He was ordered to destroy these weapons, but some of the weapons that he was ordered to destroy are still turning up. These weapons are not heavily reported because they are from the 80s and are the same types used during the Iran Iraq war. The fact is though, he was in violation of un orders by not destroying them. Our intelligence and the intelligence of other countries also suggested that Saddam had weapons and or weapons production programs. Also saddam still had missile programs, he demonstrated that because we found 3 types of missiles in violation in his arsenol. When we invaded scuds were even launched at our troops. Saddam Was a threat and he definatly supported terrorism. In order to dismantle a terrorist network we need to keep countries from supporting it, governments that will no cooperate should be dismantled. Saddam has never cooperated with us or the un. He has always been evasive. War was the only option.

smercer

02-08-2005, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
WHAT!? What corner? There is no corner. You have done nothing to disprove any of my sources. You cannot dispute the fact that this thing was there and logic dictates that this sis not the only one.

The corner you deny is there. I know you don't want to answer with pure logic or else you would have done it by now. And no saying that I did not "disprove any of my sources" is not pure logic.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

I am not wrong, there is no conspiracy. You seem to think there always is. It is always the major government making up stuff and the major news is in it with them trying to convince the masses with you it seems. It is just not true.

and to say you are never wrong is wrong in itself. Can't you remember the last time you were wrong? Can't admit the last time you knew you were wrong is more like it.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Ugh, I do not even know where to start with this one. The fact that you would rather have the government manage the funds rather than yourself turns you into a walking contradiction.
Originally posted by PeOfEo

More of these websites with no credibility. I can see Bias right away when they use $ for the s in united states. Communism cannot work on a large scale, history has proven that. When you have communism on a large scale we have green shoes. Communism has failed to work without corruptions and loss of efficiency in every large country it has been used in. It is a police state because the government controls everything. The fact that you are for something like that is a bit of a contradiction.

By the way A DICTATORSHIP IS WHAT CONTROLS EVERYTHING. and therefore is in fact a police state. Now where is the connection that says Communism is a dictatorship?

communism is a democracy because it is owned by the people and run by the people as a whole. Now how can "Communism has failed to work without corruptions and loss of efficiency in every large country it has been used in."

You are the only person I know that actually disagrees with the dictionary. Why? Because you do not want to admit you are wrong.

Quote from Dictionary: "The Penguin Modern English Dictionary"
ISBN: 0-86136-651-4

Communism [komewnizm] n theory that all property should be vested in the community, each individual receiving according to his needs and working according to his capacity; the governmental system of the Soviet Union and other states that follow the teachings of Karl Marx

community [[komewniti] n Society of people linked together by common conditions of life, beliefs etc or organized under one authority; all members of a state, the public; group of nations having purposes or interests in common; ownership in common

Communize [komewniz] v/t transfer to public ownership; convert to communism; impose communist government on.

Sounds good doesn't it? Now where does it say it is a police state?

Quote from Dictionary: "The Penguin Modern English Dictionary"
ISBN: 0-86136-651-4

capitalism [kapitaliszm] n possession of capital; economic system based on the private ownership of land or wealth.

capitalist [kapitalist] n one who has accumulated wealth and makes it available for business enterprises.

capitalization [kapitalizayshon] n act of capitalizing; c. issue issue of shares by a company to existing shareholders for which a cash payment is not required.

capitalize [kapitaliz] v/t convert to capital; convert into an equivalent capital sum; make profit out of, turn to account.

Now answer these questions: 1) How often do you hear that a government entity has been privatised? Last one I heard was that The New York Police department has been privatised and is now privately owned.

2) You have shares available, don’t you? World trade centre ring a bell?

The USA is being Capitalized and you are going to do nothing.

Quote from Dictionary: "The Penguin Modern English Dictionary"
ISBN: 0-86136-651-4

democracy [dimokRasi] n government by the people; government by majority vote; community so governed; equalty of rights, opportunities etc; absence of class feeling; the working classes.

democrat [demOkRat] n supporter of democracy.

democratic [demokRatik] adj of the nature of democracy; believing in the rights of the people.

…

dictator [diktaytor] n absolute ruler, despot; person with absolute power; domineering person.

dictatorial [ditatawRi-al] adj like a dictator; imperious, overbearing, self-assertive.

dictatorship [diktaytorship] n office of a dictator; period of a dictator’s office; absolute authority; d. of the proletariat (Marzism) period in which supreme power is taken by representatives of the working class before the establishment of a classless society.

Now what rights do you have? Did you have any rights to say no to going to war with Afganistan? Did you have any rights to say no to go to war against Iraq?

Absence of class feeling: Do Rich people get treated differently then the poor? Yes, They are not taxed like the working and the poverty class.

oohdale

02-08-2005, 10:39 PM

Yeah I will have to admit, I am glad he is Saddam is gone too.
It's hard to think of how many young boys and girls around here have died going to war on another mans land. God's land, so I am not worried about the future anyways. I get a warm feeling knowing the great I Am ---- is in ------- charge ------ up setting up and taking down leaders and nations, by which many a man has forgotten that!

Now don't we all feel better now?

Get on with building a better relationship thru a better website. Use what you know and have learned. Use "Quicksitemaker" software Or better yet, why not? :D

I just wanted to add my Nickles worth since I am so new here. Wow some have over 9,000 posts, WOW I am an active member at another forum and I only have 2,000 + there and I have only been there about 2 years. Someone has been busy typing a lot. Buw we G33ks are like that so I am talking about myself too.

smercer

02-08-2005, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by PeOfEo
some connection? Saddam Funded it and let it operate within our borders. That is a little more then 'some' connection. :rolleyes:

Who was funded by USA government, to do their biding, like a puppy dog on a leash. USA did not complain about what he was doing during the gulf war, because funded him and gave him weapons of mass destruction. Now where is the proof that he did not use all those weapons?

quote by website http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1425251,00.html

Blix: US failed to justify war
03/10/2003 16:35 - (SA)

London - Inspectors hunting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have not produced evidence to prove the country posed a big enough threat to justify war, former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said on Friday.

"I don't think there are any surprises," said Blix, referring to an interim report on Thursday by David Kay, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, a US and British team of 1 200 experts scouring Iraq.

Kay said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found, despite "substantial evidence" that president Saddam Hussein intended to make chemical and biological arms.

Blix told BBC World Service radio: "The most important point is that they (the survey group) confirm that they have not found any stocks of weapons of mass destruction of any kind."

The former chief inspector said the United Nations charter allowed self-defence against an attack, but that the US-led coalition had failed to prove Iraq posed a "manifest and imminent" threat -- the UN criteria for military action.

"One (criterion) is that there should be a manifest threat," Blix told the BBC.

"The intelligence was not so strong in reality that it could be said to be manifest.

'Not imminent'

"And the second one would be the imminence of it. If they can develop weapons of mass destruction in five years or 10 years, well that certainly is not imminent."

Blix contested the argument that if the United States backed by Britain had not invaded in March, Iraq could have "proceeded and developed" suspect activities.

"I think one should have some caution there, because the Security Council had never intended to abandon long-term monitoring, so the Iraqis would not have been left alone to proceed with whatever they had started," Blix said.

and don't say it's from a site with no reputation, because that is the site you posted yours.

Quote from website http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=36546

Coalition experts are examining dozens of mortar shells found in southern Iraq which could contain chemical weapons.

Danish troops found 36 buried mortar rounds concealed in road construction. According to the Danish army, initial tests indicate the rounds could contain blister gas, reports Reuters.

Results of more extensive tests should be available in about two days, the Danes said on an official website quoted by the news agency.

"could" is not absolute proof. where are the "The results of more extensive tests"? This is just an article without a base, because they are not certain that it is exactly what they say it is.

Find the article that says what it was after the extensive tests (if you can).

Not only that but you said it was readily available in a bunker. this said it was "buried". There is a difference meaning you have to get your facts straight in the first place.

Since the rest of the article is about mustard gas in general I am not going to bother with the rest of it.

Quote by website http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
In virtually every case -- chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles -- the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors.

That’s a lie to say he had Nuclear weapons, he never had any nor used any. anyway that story sounds totally outrageous. can you find more to back that site up?