You have an absolute talent for not seeing the facts and when someone explains them you want them to explain them again. Just like you didn't hear anything. That's getting really old.
First, Mr. Rudeman, I was directing my questions to someone else.
Second, these are legitimate questions, and you or anyone holding your views should be able to answer them with little effort.
Third, I have seen a lot of opinion and little facts. Just show some facts that I can consider.
Forth, you are one to talk about not seeing facts.
Yes I know you say you've seen little facts because when someone presents them you turn the other way. Get real!
Ok, look. Do you understand that just because you quote an article or some type of publication, does not mean that what was quoted is "fact" as you seem to put forth? I understand this and I think that some here do.
Anyone can say anything and be quoted on it. Many journalists use this to their advantage. Stating mistruths and half truths, knowing that someone will fall for it. They word their sentences carefully. This requires that you read carefully. It is also widely known that some journalists bend facts to support their political view. This also requires diligence to sift through the so-called "facts".
I remember in school being taught how to research and verification. The questions I pose to you and others are for clarification purposes. If you are to take someone's opinion on something and be considered credible, you need to verify his opinion is based on facts and not just some other fact-less opinion.
You and others are putting out conjecture based on opinions of opinions of opinions. Now that is fine, but if you expect anyone to consider your viewpoint, some facts couldn't hurt.
This topic is an important one. So let's debate it. But, I fail to see how we can come to some reasonable conclusion based on opinion proliferation.
Ok, look. Do you understand that just because you quote an article or some type of publication, does not mean that what was quoted is "fact" as you seem to put forth? I understand this and I think that some here do.
Anyone can say anything and be quoted on it. Many journalists use this to their advantage. Stating mistruths and half truths, knowing that someone will fall for it. They word their sentences carefully. This requires that you read carefully. It is also widely known that some journalists bend facts to support their political view. This also requires diligence to sift through the so-called "facts".
I remember in school being taught how to research and verification. The questions I pose to you and others are for clarification purposes. If you are to take someone's opinion on something and be considered credible, you need to verify his opinion is based on facts and not just some other fact-less opinion.
You and others are putting out conjecture based on opinions of opinions of opinions. Now that is fine, but if you expect anyone to consider your viewpoint, some facts couldn't hurt.
This topic is an important one. So let's debate it. But, I fail to see how we can come to some reasonable conclusion based on opinion proliferation.
Yes, yes, yes The only quotes and facts here that matter are the ones you present. Funny when I sighted " editorial " from one of your sources you seemed to have poo, pooed it.
Come on! You aren't even being consistant with yourself.
Yes, yes, yes The only quotes and facts here that matter are the ones you present. Funny when I sighted " editorial " from one of your sources you seemed to have poo, pooed it.
Come on! You aren't even being consistant with yourself.
Editorials are not always based on facts. Which one are you referring to?
You know i have been looking for someone that could read SH's mind. Where were you when Powell went to the UN?
Sitting in front of my television set, watching him, occasionally looking shiftily and uncomfortably at the cameras, as he knowingly lied to the world, under deliberate instruction. The first set of "evidence" that Powell was requested to present to the U.N. enraged (Powell) so much that after briefly scanning the material, he reportedly slammed the documents on the table adding "This is crap, complete bullshit". He knew it was all lies, and so did the rest of the administration....and so did the rest of the world as they looked on.
Quote:
When you are on a plane and a guy is threatening to blow it up because his religious leaders told him to, will you be able to Identify your enemy then?
Yes, here's some. Enemy #1: the man with the bomb. Enemy #2: the men who indoctrinated the man with the bomb. Enemy #3: the men and governments who encourage and spread the teaching of systems of hate, (which result in the indoctrination the men who end up with the bombs). Enemy #4: the friends of the men in the governments who encourage the teaching of hate (which indoctinates the men to think in violent ways). Enemy #5 the directors of corporations that indisciminately sell weapons making huge profits to scumball regimes (which indoctinate their young men in systems of hate). Enemy #6: The men who formulate foreign policies that enrage people to such an extent that they turn to terrorism because they are humiliated, have no voice, no prospects, no legitimate outlet for grievances, and no hope.
Quote:
When you saw palestinians dancing in the streets along with other large groups of fundamentalists cheering the deaths of innocent people, you meen to tell me, you did not see who the enemy possibly was?
I know who the enemy is. I hope you do also. See above. Those Palestinian kids were displaying a gut reaction that the nation that finances Israel, their tormentor and enemy, was hit, (despite those who lost their lives in 9-11 were never the enemies of the Palestinian people. It was an ugly sight. So was the random attacks and murders of muslims and sikhs here in the US in the wake of 9-11. So was the disgusting displays here during the "shock and awe" part of the strike on Iraq: sentiments displayed all over the nationwide...typically "kill those fvcking raghead bastards", as thousands of Iraqi civilians and civilian infrastructure were deliberately targeted. Perhaps the gut reaction is understandable, considering 82% of US citizens in a poll reckoned that it was Iraqis who hijacked those planes, and 55% reckoned Saddam Hussein gave the orders. Parallel those ignorant Palestinian kids.
Iraqis were never our enemy (10,000 of their innocent civilian citizens now dead due to our bombing). They happened have the misfortune to have Rumsfeld's vicious buddyboy Saddam Hussein as a leader, Karma? I wouldn't want either Bush's or Hussein's.
Quote:
I saw a million people celebrating NYD in NY despite being the biggest target on the map! You call that scared? [/B]
Good for the New Yorkers! I love 'em. Down to earth, realistic, in- your-face people. Perhaps the government scare campaign isn't working after all. Bin Laden must have been well pissed to watch those celebrants in Times Square and elsewhere. Regarding terrorism, lets be realistic, like the British people were for 30 years between 1970 and 2000 when the IRA was targeting UK cities on a weekly basis, which in frequency and persistence is far far worse than America has had to endure. Everyone became vigilant but didnt allow paranoia to overtake rationality. Statistically, international terrorism in the US remains an extremely unlikely cause of being killed or injured. However, the consequences of the war on Iraq may negate that fortunate fact over the coming decade or two, or more.
First, let me commend you on staying on point. Some others could learn from you.
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Sitting in front of my television set, watching him, occasionally looking shiftily and uncomfortably at the cameras, as he knowingly lied to the world, under deliberate instruction. The first set of "evidence" that Powell was requested to present to the U.N. enraged (Powell) so much that after briefly scanning the material, he reportedly slammed the documents on the table adding "This is crap, complete bullshit". He knew it was all lies, and so did the rest of the administration....and so did the rest of the world as they looked on.
I would like to read on this. Is there any credible documentation?
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Yes, here's some. Enemy #1: the man with the bomb. Enemy #2: the men who indoctrinated the man with the bomb. Enemy #3: the men and governments who encourage and spread the teaching of systems of hate, (which result in the indoctrination the men who end up with the bombs). Enemy #4: the friends of the men in the governments who encourage the teaching of hate (which indoctinates the men to think in violent ways). Enemy #5 the directors of corporations that indisciminately sell weapons making huge profits to scumball regimes (which indoctinate their young men in systems of hate). Enemy #6: The men who formulate foreign policies that enrage people to such an extent that they turn to terrorism because they are humiliated, have no voice, no prospects, no legitimate outlet for grievances, and no hope.
I'm with you on 1-4, but 5 does not force anyone to buy or use their products for evil, and 6, when you are a superpower, you are bound to please some and displease some. This would be true no matter what the policy maker's political leanings. So, 5 and 6 are a stretch IMO.
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
I know who the enemy is. I hope you do also. See above. Those Palestinian kids were displaying a gut reaction that the nation that finances Israel, their tormentor and enemy, was hit, (despite those who lost their lives in 9-11 were never the enemies of the Palestinian people. It was an ugly sight.
I did not see just kids, please do not spin it that way. There were polls taken of Palestinian adults and their opinions about 9/11 and it was scary. I will look that data up if I can find it, but I think you will be surprised.
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
So was the random attacks and murders of muslims and sikhs here in the US in the wake of 9-11. So was the disgusting displays here during the "shock and awe" part of the strike on Iraq: sentiments displayed all over the nationwide...typically "kill those fvcking raghead bastards", as thousands of Iraqi civilians and civilian infrastructure were deliberately targeted. Perhaps the gut reaction is understandable, considering 82% of US citizens in a poll reckoned that it was Iraqis who hijacked those planes, and 55% reckoned Saddam Hussein gave the orders. Parallel those ignorant Palestinian kids.
I would like to see that poll. I think you are spinning again.
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Iraqis were never our enemy (10,000 of their innocent civilian citizens now dead due to our bombing). They happened have the misfortune to have Rumsfeld's vicious buddyboy Saddam Hussein as a leader, Karma? I wouldn't want either Bush's or Hussein's.
Implying that DR is or was a freind of SH simply because at one time they met and shook hands or had business dealings, is just inflammatory. You know it.
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Good for the New Yorkers! I love 'em. Down to earth, realistic, in- your-face people. Perhaps the government scare campaign isn't working after all. Bin Laden must have been well pissed to watch those celebrants in Times Square and elsewhere. Regarding terrorism, lets be realistic, like the British people were for 30 years between 1970 and 2000 when the IRA was targeting UK cities on a weekly basis, which in frequency and persistence is far far worse than America has had to endure. Everyone became vigilant but didnt allow paranoia to overtake rationality. Statistically, international terrorism in the US remains an extremely unlikely cause of being killed or injured. However, the consequences of the war on Iraq may negate that fortunate fact over the coming decade or two, or more.
For the most part I am with you on this. The scare campaign thing is also inflammatory. Because you know you and many others of democratic persuasion would/will jump on this admin. if another terror act occurs, claiming they did not do enough.
Once again it's you who are alomost never right about anything!
You pad your posts with half truths ( at best ). No we haven't found any WOMD. Tell me if you were doing a project for your boss would he accept it if you said " I've completed 25% of the work that's good enough isn't it? "
It was an illegal invasion because the UN approved this based on the idea that Iraq was a direct threat to us. That they had those same WOMD.
So what if they found components? We know he had an arsenal at one time. I'd be surprised if we didn't find some remnants of that.
Your arguments are weak and rhetorical.
Give it up. Geez!
A relevent side note. In typical republican fashion....
This could have been on someone's mind for sometime.
We have found WMD related items. We even found chemical warheads in "excellent" condition if you recall. These were discovered by international weapons inspectors. The Iraqis basically said they forgot they were there. We found mobile weapons labs as well, despite your claims of them being benign. We have not found stockpiles of chemical or biological agents. That much I'll give you, though there are a million possibilities as to where they could be: Buried in Iraq, or even Syria for that matter. We just don't know.
And sammi jo:
Though you post sveral thousand words per reply, you say little that is new. With every criticism of foreign policy you make, with every anti-corporate rant, with every conspiracy theory and ridiculous claim of delibrate civilian murder and rants about the WOT in general , I find myself asking one thing: WHAT SHOULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY?
You simply won't answer the question. If we don't go after terror with the US military, how do we? Do we withdraw from the world, close our military bases everywhere around the globe, and become an irrelevent power? How do we "give the repressed a voice" to prevent terror? Are we responsible for the plight of the people in nations tht have non-democratic froms of government? All of your assumptions and statements are predicated on the fact that the US somehow provoked 9/11 and other attacks, and is directly responsible for them. In other words, "we asked for it". Yet you haven't shown how. When we act to dispose of a murderous regime, you criticize the policy as imperialist. When we don't invade or use force, as in the case of Saudi Arabia or even North Korea in a more extreme case, we are spineless and unwilling to really do what's needed. You slam the Bush administration for using force and not being nuanced, yet when goals are reached through diplomacy (Lybia) and negotiation, or multi-lateral diplomacy is even attempted (i.e. the North Korea situation), you say the situation is not being handled correctly.
Lots of criticisms, no solutions. Tell me what you'd honestly like to do differently.
We have found WMD related items. We even found chemical warheads in "excellent" condition if you recall. These were discovered by international weapons inspectors. The Iraqis basically said they forgot they were there. We found mobile weapons labs as well, despite your claims of them being benign. We have not found stockpiles of chemical or biological agents. That much I'll give you, though there are a million possibilities as to where they could be: Buried in Iraq, or even Syria for that matter. We just don't know.
And sammi jo:
Though you post sveral thousand words per reply, you say little that is new. With every criticism of foreign policy you make, with every anti-corporate rant, with every conspiracy theory and ridiculous claim of delibrate civilian murder and rants about the WOT in general , I find myself asking one thing: WHAT SHOULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY?
You simply won't answer the question. If we don't go after terror with the US military, how do we? Do we withdraw from the world, close our military bases everywhere around the globe, and become an irrelevent power? How do we "give the repressed a voice" to prevent terror? Are we responsible for the plight of the people in nations tht have non-democratic froms of government? All of your assumptions and statements are predicated on the fact that the US somehow provoked 9/11 and other attacks, and is directly responsible for them. In other We would have a real fight on our hands there. We'd even words, "we asked for it". Yet you haven't shown how. When we act to dispose of a murderous regime, you criticize the policy as imperialist. When we don't invade or use force, as in the case of Saudi Arabia or even North Korea in a more extreme case, we are spineless and unwilling to really do what's needed. You slam the Bush administration for using force and not being nuanced, yet when goals are reached through diplomacy (Lybia) and negotiation, or multi-lateral diplomacy is even attempted (i.e. the North Korea situation), you say the situation is not being handled correctly.
Lots of criticisms, no solutions. Tell me what you'd honestly like to do differently.
Ah the master of subterfuge himself!
Funny the only ones wanting these peices of weapons that couldn't hurt anyone in their current form count are the ones who want it to be true.
To do what's needed in N. Korea ( if you mean what I think you do ) would be a tragidy of human loss.
We would even probably win. However the world would remember it as one of the most unnecessary moves of our time.
I'm glad you weren't a voting adult during most of the cold war.
Comments
[i]As to the rest.....THE PROOF IS IN THE NOT FINDING!
When he says not finding, he means not finding everything ...100% He has told me that anything less than that will be unacceptable.
Once again read the kay report carefully, they have found evidence.
Read carefully:
http://www.odci.gov/nic/speeches_DCIstatement.html
and
http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq...q_Oct_2002.htm
keep in mind, you spinners, this is public information and not unknown classified information that none of you have access to.
Look up the word "evidence", or if I have to I will post the definition.
Originally posted by NaplesX
When he says not finding, he means not finding everything ...100% He has told me that anything less than that will be unacceptable.
Once again read the kay report carefully, they have found evidence.
Read carefully:
http://www.odci.gov/nic/speeches_DCIstatement.html
and
http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq...q_Oct_2002.htm
keep in mind, you spinners, this is public information and not unknown classified information that none of you have access to.
Look up the word "evidence", or if I have to I will post the definition.
As we've explained before finding the whole is all that counts!
Really getting tired of going over this again and again.
Don't think it's going to make me give up though. That tactic won't work.
I knew if I left you'd jump in and post a reply. You were just waiting because having the last word is very important to yuo isn't it?
Originally posted by jimmac
Your replies are getting weak and desperate here.
You have an absolute talent for not seeing the facts and when someone explains them you want them to explain them again. Just like you didn't hear anything. That's getting really old.
First, Mr. Rudeman, I was directing my questions to someone else.
Second, these are legitimate questions, and you or anyone holding your views should be able to answer them with little effort.
Third, I have seen a lot of opinion and little facts. Just show some facts that I can consider.
Forth, you are one to talk about not seeing facts.
Originally posted by NaplesX
First, Mr. Rudeman, I was directing my questions to someone else.
Second, these are legitimate questions, and you or anyone holding your views should be able to answer them with little effort.
Third, I have seen a lot of opinion and little facts. Just show some facts that I can consider.
Forth, you are one to talk about not seeing facts.
If that's so why did you quote me? Besides anyone can comment on your subterfuge.
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes I know you say you've seen little facts because when someone presents them you turn the other way. Get real!
Ok, look. Do you understand that just because you quote an article or some type of publication, does not mean that what was quoted is "fact" as you seem to put forth? I understand this and I think that some here do.
Anyone can say anything and be quoted on it. Many journalists use this to their advantage. Stating mistruths and half truths, knowing that someone will fall for it. They word their sentences carefully. This requires that you read carefully. It is also widely known that some journalists bend facts to support their political view. This also requires diligence to sift through the so-called "facts".
I remember in school being taught how to research and verification. The questions I pose to you and others are for clarification purposes. If you are to take someone's opinion on something and be considered credible, you need to verify his opinion is based on facts and not just some other fact-less opinion.
You and others are putting out conjecture based on opinions of opinions of opinions. Now that is fine, but if you expect anyone to consider your viewpoint, some facts couldn't hurt.
This topic is an important one. So let's debate it. But, I fail to see how we can come to some reasonable conclusion based on opinion proliferation.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok, look. Do you understand that just because you quote an article or some type of publication, does not mean that what was quoted is "fact" as you seem to put forth? I understand this and I think that some here do.
Anyone can say anything and be quoted on it. Many journalists use this to their advantage. Stating mistruths and half truths, knowing that someone will fall for it. They word their sentences carefully. This requires that you read carefully. It is also widely known that some journalists bend facts to support their political view. This also requires diligence to sift through the so-called "facts".
I remember in school being taught how to research and verification. The questions I pose to you and others are for clarification purposes. If you are to take someone's opinion on something and be considered credible, you need to verify his opinion is based on facts and not just some other fact-less opinion.
You and others are putting out conjecture based on opinions of opinions of opinions. Now that is fine, but if you expect anyone to consider your viewpoint, some facts couldn't hurt.
This topic is an important one. So let's debate it. But, I fail to see how we can come to some reasonable conclusion based on opinion proliferation.
Yes, yes, yes The only quotes and facts here that matter are the ones you present. Funny when I sighted " editorial " from one of your sources you seemed to have poo, pooed it.
Come on! You aren't even being consistant with yourself.
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes, yes, yes The only quotes and facts here that matter are the ones you present. Funny when I sighted " editorial " from one of your sources you seemed to have poo, pooed it.
Come on! You aren't even being consistant with yourself.
Editorials are not always based on facts. Which one are you referring to?
You know i have been looking for someone that could read SH's mind. Where were you when Powell went to the UN?
Sitting in front of my television set, watching him, occasionally looking shiftily and uncomfortably at the cameras, as he knowingly lied to the world, under deliberate instruction. The first set of "evidence" that Powell was requested to present to the U.N. enraged (Powell) so much that after briefly scanning the material, he reportedly slammed the documents on the table adding "This is crap, complete bullshit". He knew it was all lies, and so did the rest of the administration....and so did the rest of the world as they looked on.
When you are on a plane and a guy is threatening to blow it up because his religious leaders told him to, will you be able to Identify your enemy then?
Yes, here's some. Enemy #1: the man with the bomb. Enemy #2: the men who indoctrinated the man with the bomb. Enemy #3: the men and governments who encourage and spread the teaching of systems of hate, (which result in the indoctrination the men who end up with the bombs). Enemy #4: the friends of the men in the governments who encourage the teaching of hate (which indoctinates the men to think in violent ways). Enemy #5 the directors of corporations that indisciminately sell weapons making huge profits to scumball regimes (which indoctinate their young men in systems of hate). Enemy #6: The men who formulate foreign policies that enrage people to such an extent that they turn to terrorism because they are humiliated, have no voice, no prospects, no legitimate outlet for grievances, and no hope.
When you saw palestinians dancing in the streets along with other large groups of fundamentalists cheering the deaths of innocent people, you meen to tell me, you did not see who the enemy possibly was?
I know who the enemy is. I hope you do also. See above. Those Palestinian kids were displaying a gut reaction that the nation that finances Israel, their tormentor and enemy, was hit, (despite those who lost their lives in 9-11 were never the enemies of the Palestinian people. It was an ugly sight. So was the random attacks and murders of muslims and sikhs here in the US in the wake of 9-11. So was the disgusting displays here during the "shock and awe" part of the strike on Iraq: sentiments displayed all over the nationwide...typically "kill those fvcking raghead bastards", as thousands of Iraqi civilians and civilian infrastructure were deliberately targeted. Perhaps the gut reaction is understandable, considering 82% of US citizens in a poll reckoned that it was Iraqis who hijacked those planes, and 55% reckoned Saddam Hussein gave the orders. Parallel those ignorant Palestinian kids.
Iraqis were never our enemy (10,000 of their innocent civilian citizens now dead due to our bombing). They happened have the misfortune to have Rumsfeld's vicious buddyboy Saddam Hussein as a leader, Karma? I wouldn't want either Bush's or Hussein's.
I saw a million people celebrating NYD in NY despite being the biggest target on the map! You call that scared? [/B]
Good for the New Yorkers! I love 'em. Down to earth, realistic, in- your-face people. Perhaps the government scare campaign isn't working after all. Bin Laden must have been well pissed to watch those celebrants in Times Square and elsewhere. Regarding terrorism, lets be realistic, like the British people were for 30 years between 1970 and 2000 when the IRA was targeting UK cities on a weekly basis, which in frequency and persistence is far far worse than America has had to endure. Everyone became vigilant but didnt allow paranoia to overtake rationality. Statistically, international terrorism in the US remains an extremely unlikely cause of being killed or injured. However, the consequences of the war on Iraq may negate that fortunate fact over the coming decade or two, or more.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Sitting in front of my television set, watching him, occasionally looking shiftily and uncomfortably at the cameras, as he knowingly lied to the world, under deliberate instruction. The first set of "evidence" that Powell was requested to present to the U.N. enraged (Powell) so much that after briefly scanning the material, he reportedly slammed the documents on the table adding "This is crap, complete bullshit". He knew it was all lies, and so did the rest of the administration....and so did the rest of the world as they looked on.
I would like to read on this. Is there any credible documentation?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Yes, here's some. Enemy #1: the man with the bomb. Enemy #2: the men who indoctrinated the man with the bomb. Enemy #3: the men and governments who encourage and spread the teaching of systems of hate, (which result in the indoctrination the men who end up with the bombs). Enemy #4: the friends of the men in the governments who encourage the teaching of hate (which indoctinates the men to think in violent ways). Enemy #5 the directors of corporations that indisciminately sell weapons making huge profits to scumball regimes (which indoctinate their young men in systems of hate). Enemy #6: The men who formulate foreign policies that enrage people to such an extent that they turn to terrorism because they are humiliated, have no voice, no prospects, no legitimate outlet for grievances, and no hope.
I'm with you on 1-4, but 5 does not force anyone to buy or use their products for evil, and 6, when you are a superpower, you are bound to please some and displease some. This would be true no matter what the policy maker's political leanings. So, 5 and 6 are a stretch IMO.
Originally posted by sammi jo
I know who the enemy is. I hope you do also. See above. Those Palestinian kids were displaying a gut reaction that the nation that finances Israel, their tormentor and enemy, was hit, (despite those who lost their lives in 9-11 were never the enemies of the Palestinian people. It was an ugly sight.
I did not see just kids, please do not spin it that way. There were polls taken of Palestinian adults and their opinions about 9/11 and it was scary. I will look that data up if I can find it, but I think you will be surprised.
Originally posted by sammi jo
So was the random attacks and murders of muslims and sikhs here in the US in the wake of 9-11. So was the disgusting displays here during the "shock and awe" part of the strike on Iraq: sentiments displayed all over the nationwide...typically "kill those fvcking raghead bastards", as thousands of Iraqi civilians and civilian infrastructure were deliberately targeted. Perhaps the gut reaction is understandable, considering 82% of US citizens in a poll reckoned that it was Iraqis who hijacked those planes, and 55% reckoned Saddam Hussein gave the orders. Parallel those ignorant Palestinian kids.
I would like to see that poll. I think you are spinning again.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Iraqis were never our enemy (10,000 of their innocent civilian citizens now dead due to our bombing). They happened have the misfortune to have Rumsfeld's vicious buddyboy Saddam Hussein as a leader, Karma? I wouldn't want either Bush's or Hussein's.
Implying that DR is or was a freind of SH simply because at one time they met and shook hands or had business dealings, is just inflammatory. You know it.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Good for the New Yorkers! I love 'em. Down to earth, realistic, in- your-face people. Perhaps the government scare campaign isn't working after all. Bin Laden must have been well pissed to watch those celebrants in Times Square and elsewhere. Regarding terrorism, lets be realistic, like the British people were for 30 years between 1970 and 2000 when the IRA was targeting UK cities on a weekly basis, which in frequency and persistence is far far worse than America has had to endure. Everyone became vigilant but didnt allow paranoia to overtake rationality. Statistically, international terrorism in the US remains an extremely unlikely cause of being killed or injured. However, the consequences of the war on Iraq may negate that fortunate fact over the coming decade or two, or more.
For the most part I am with you on this. The scare campaign thing is also inflammatory. Because you know you and many others of democratic persuasion would/will jump on this admin. if another terror act occurs, claiming they did not do enough.
Originally posted by jimmac
Once again it's you who are alomost never right about anything!
You pad your posts with half truths ( at best ). No we haven't found any WOMD. Tell me if you were doing a project for your boss would he accept it if you said " I've completed 25% of the work that's good enough isn't it? "
It was an illegal invasion because the UN approved this based on the idea that Iraq was a direct threat to us. That they had those same WOMD.
So what if they found components? We know he had an arsenal at one time. I'd be surprised if we didn't find some remnants of that.
Your arguments are weak and rhetorical.
Give it up. Geez!
A relevent side note. In typical republican fashion....
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html
This could have been on someone's mind for sometime.
We have found WMD related items. We even found chemical warheads in "excellent" condition if you recall. These were discovered by international weapons inspectors. The Iraqis basically said they forgot they were there. We found mobile weapons labs as well, despite your claims of them being benign. We have not found stockpiles of chemical or biological agents. That much I'll give you, though there are a million possibilities as to where they could be: Buried in Iraq, or even Syria for that matter. We just don't know.
And sammi jo:
Though you post sveral thousand words per reply, you say little that is new. With every criticism of foreign policy you make, with every anti-corporate rant, with every conspiracy theory and ridiculous claim of delibrate civilian murder and rants about the WOT in general , I find myself asking one thing: WHAT SHOULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY?
You simply won't answer the question. If we don't go after terror with the US military, how do we? Do we withdraw from the world, close our military bases everywhere around the globe, and become an irrelevent power? How do we "give the repressed a voice" to prevent terror? Are we responsible for the plight of the people in nations tht have non-democratic froms of government? All of your assumptions and statements are predicated on the fact that the US somehow provoked 9/11 and other attacks, and is directly responsible for them. In other words, "we asked for it". Yet you haven't shown how. When we act to dispose of a murderous regime, you criticize the policy as imperialist. When we don't invade or use force, as in the case of Saudi Arabia or even North Korea in a more extreme case, we are spineless and unwilling to really do what's needed. You slam the Bush administration for using force and not being nuanced, yet when goals are reached through diplomacy (Lybia) and negotiation, or multi-lateral diplomacy is even attempted (i.e. the North Korea situation), you say the situation is not being handled correctly.
Lots of criticisms, no solutions. Tell me what you'd honestly like to do differently.
Originally posted by SDW2001
We have found WMD related items. We even found chemical warheads in "excellent" condition if you recall. These were discovered by international weapons inspectors. The Iraqis basically said they forgot they were there. We found mobile weapons labs as well, despite your claims of them being benign. We have not found stockpiles of chemical or biological agents. That much I'll give you, though there are a million possibilities as to where they could be: Buried in Iraq, or even Syria for that matter. We just don't know.
And sammi jo:
Though you post sveral thousand words per reply, you say little that is new. With every criticism of foreign policy you make, with every anti-corporate rant, with every conspiracy theory and ridiculous claim of delibrate civilian murder and rants about the WOT in general , I find myself asking one thing: WHAT SHOULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY?
You simply won't answer the question. If we don't go after terror with the US military, how do we? Do we withdraw from the world, close our military bases everywhere around the globe, and become an irrelevent power? How do we "give the repressed a voice" to prevent terror? Are we responsible for the plight of the people in nations tht have non-democratic froms of government? All of your assumptions and statements are predicated on the fact that the US somehow provoked 9/11 and other attacks, and is directly responsible for them. In other We would have a real fight on our hands there. We'd even words, "we asked for it". Yet you haven't shown how. When we act to dispose of a murderous regime, you criticize the policy as imperialist. When we don't invade or use force, as in the case of Saudi Arabia or even North Korea in a more extreme case, we are spineless and unwilling to really do what's needed. You slam the Bush administration for using force and not being nuanced, yet when goals are reached through diplomacy (Lybia) and negotiation, or multi-lateral diplomacy is even attempted (i.e. the North Korea situation), you say the situation is not being handled correctly.
Lots of criticisms, no solutions. Tell me what you'd honestly like to do differently.
Ah the master of subterfuge himself!
Funny the only ones wanting these peices of weapons that couldn't hurt anyone in their current form count are the ones who want it to be true.
To do what's needed in N. Korea ( if you mean what I think you do ) would be a tragidy of human loss.
We would even probably win. However the world would remember it as one of the most unnecessary moves of our time.
I'm glad you weren't a voting adult during most of the cold war.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Editorials are not always based on facts. Which one are you referring to?
The one supposedly debunking the Washington post article from the last thread of course.
Originally posted by jimmac
Ah the master of subterfuge himself!
Funny the only ones wanting these peices of weapons that couldn't hurt anyone in their current form count are the ones who want it to be true.
To do what's neede in N. Korea ( if you mean what I think you do ) would be a tragidy of human loss.
Once again, why would the government you defend want to keep these pieces around?
Once again, these were not just laying around, but carefully hidden
Originally posted by jimmac
The one supposedly debunking the Washington post article from the last thread of course.
You are a piece of work.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again, why would the government you defend want to keep these pieces around?
Once again, these were not just laying around, but carefully hidden
Once again why wouldn't they. They probably forgot about them. Geez!
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are a piece of work.
I'm a piece of work because I gotcha!
Originally posted by jimmac
I'm a piece of work because I gotcha!
Yeah that is it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Yeah that is it.
Yup! That's it!
Originally posted by NaplesX
Yeah that is it.
It is so hard to follow your logic, refresh me in what you GOT me on?