Fahrenheit 9/11, has any one seen it?

[Trejiuvanat]

Personally, I feel sympathethic to Thrawn's opinion on this.

 

The US did pretty much between 78-2001, [iran, Honduras, Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, the list goes on and on.]

 

Before starting another crusade to expand "democracy", "justice" and "freedom", the U.S. should really take a look at the problems within their borders. There are other countries in the world that can take over the police role that the US occupies. (The Latinamerican Coalition in Haiti, headed by Brazil).

 

As for Bush's handlers, it'll be hard to get them out of office, as they are the people in charge of industry, etc. The same elites that do profit from the aggressive external policies of the US.

 

As for the Oil Reserves, OPEC does control just under 40% of the worlds Oil Reserves, the big powers of the world control more than half of it, the thing is that the OPEC countries "produce" more oil than the amount the actually consume, quite opposite is the situation of the US, Russia and the EU, who actually consume more than what the "produce". The problem is that the same elites that direct the different governments insist on oil rather than figuring out new fuel sources. (Hydrogen engine, anyone?)

 

As for Guantanamo, Iraqi Prisoners and other scandals, well the media will scream in outrage each time something like this is found out, but in the end nothing happens.

 

Fanatism and Patriotism, remarkably similar if you think about it. Oh well. Both Arabs and U.S. Americans are almost similarly fanatical. Some would blow themselves up in the name of Alá, the others go willinig to blow themselves up in the name of a president and a flag. "Nothing becomes a murderer as easy as one's country." F. Dürrenmatt.

[NIIIC]

Thank you for your comment but I am not transforming what you say.

 

Again, please don't quote me and waffle off onto something with nothing to do with the quote. My stsatement has nothing to do with what comes out of George Bush's gob concerning his own spiritual beliefs. It rather obviosly addressed the stupidity of someone with fanatical religious beliefs pre4pared to blow themselves up along with a few innocent passers by; in the name of version of god.

 

As you see I have sad as a first word "Exactly" which means I AGREE. So don't start to feel your self offended when I ad a second fact to yours. All I said is that you are right and that...

 

Yeah well keep your voice down because if you read the papers you would know that Bush is trying to oil Alaska which is what we don't want for god's sake! We don't want to many more Exxon disasters spoiling a rather beautiful wilderness do we??

 

Ho sorry I forgot that a "beautiful wilderness" is more important than fabulous temples, a few hundreds American, English and Iranians soldiers, a few towns and the hole population of a country. Personally I can' see why we shoaled favours a “beautiful wilderness to all of that.

 

Oh and for your first fact, I think even me, if I was a very high member of the US army, would have said so: ask for an investigation and clam that people should know what has happened, but just if every thing is discovered. It is much easier then, because people think you are for them. Any one can change sides and blame some one ell like the pore soldiers that goes in prison for ONE year (as you said, but sorry, I don't think that is enough) at your place. Oh and if he was really the bad one, why does he go in prison just for ONE year. Come one it doesn’t holed, or he has done that one his one will, and then 1 year is nothing compeer to the crime. Or he has received orders and we tolled him to be quiet and he will have a great life after a small year of prison (if you see what I mean.)

 

 

Now I am not affirming nay thing, I am just saying what I think and what I understand from what is in the Swiss news.

 

I just hope I haven't "slice up their paragraphs get your facts right" too much and that I haven't "Please don't quote me in future and then go off on a subject which had nothing to do with what I was originally saying " given you the occasion of putting that phrase again.

But sorry for quoting you if you don't like it, I will try to avoid doing it.

 

Editted by Trejiuvanat. Editted the Quotes.

Edited August 5, 2004 by NIIIC

[Jahled]

Thank you for your comment but I am not transforming what you say.

 

Again, please don't quote me and waffle off onto something with nothing to do with the quote. My stsatement has nothing to do with what comes out of George Bush's gob concerning his own spiritual beliefs. It rather obviosly addressed the stupidity of someone with fanatical religious beliefs pre4pared to blow themselves up along with a few innocent passers by; in the name of version of god.

 

As you see I have sad as a first word "Exactly" which means I AGREE. So don't start to feel your self offended when I ad a second fact to yours. All I said is that you are right and that...

 

Yeah well keep your voice down because if you read the papers you would know that Bush is trying to oil Alaska which is what we don't want for god's sake! We don't want to many more Exxon disasters spoiling a rather beautiful wilderness do we??

 

Ho sorry I forgot that a "beautiful wilderness" is more important than fabulous temples, a few hundreds American, English and Iranians soldiers, a few towns and the hole population of a country. Personally I can' see why we shoaled favours a “beautiful wilderness to all of that.

 

Oh and for your first fact, I think even me, if I was a very high member of the US army, would have said so: ask for an investigation and clam that people should know what has happened, but just if every thing is discovered. It is much easier then, because people think you are for them. Any one can change sides and blame some one ell like the pore soldiers that goes in prison for ONE year (as you said, but sorry, I don't think that is enough) at your place. Oh and if he was really the bad one, why does he go in prison just for ONE year. Come one it doesn’t holed, or he has done that one his one will, and then 1 year is nothing compeer to the crime. Or he has received orders and we tolled him to be quiet and he will have a great life after a small year of prison (if you see what I mean.)

 

 

Now I am not affirming nay thing, I am just saying what I think and what I understand from what is in the Swiss news.

 

I just hope I haven't "slice up their paragraphs get your facts right" too much and that I haven't "Please don't quote me in future and then go off on a subject which had nothing to do with what I was originally saying " given you the occasion of putting that phrase again.

But sorry for quoting you if you don't like it, I will try to avoid doing it.

 

Editted by Trejiuvanat. Editted the Quotes.

 

Well your last line has taken the edge of my dim view of you.

 

If you had bothered to think about my original post and got to the end of it, before you started quoting lines here and there out of context as an excuse to express your own views, you might have realized I have a very cynical view of all this Iraq crap, and the effect all this oil-dependancy is doing to the world. But my guess is that your a student and more prepared to talk loudly about life as if you know all about it when you're still at school.

 

And after all I said about badly quoting me you do it again and imply I think it's ok to devestate a country in preferance to beautiful wilderness. Fool. Oh and how dare you. I hate all the destruction to human and environmental life western society's dependance on oil is doing. I would like something left for my kid's grandchildren to enjoy other than societies ripped apart my conflict and a planet seriously screwed because of the greed and foolishness of not just men like George Bush (he's an easy target) but the multitude of other business men running the economies of the modern world; your home-country as well. No one has got any moral high ground above anybody else.

 

It's all a load of bollocks.

 

Whilst Bush and Blair invade Iraq; European industry invests in Burma, dodgy Arab regimes in the Middle East, etc; just because it's not on your newsscreens it doesn't mean a abuses of human right's and dignity are not happening. Go and speak to a Tibetan forcably sterilized by the Chinese-invaders; whose 'economic miricle' the western world has been guilty of aiding with a blind eye to systematic huiman-abuses. Or how much Swiss money is investwed in Syria who gasses their Kurdish people and whose state makes racist anti-jewish TV programes depicting Jewish people as child-eaters. This is an age of madness.

 

IAALOB.

 

Don't quote me in future. You don't read what you'r quoting from.

[Mad78]

because he hade so called mass destruction weapons that turned out to be a very SMALL stock of INSECTISIDES,

Weapons of Moss destruction

Sorry if this is out of subject [quickly leaves thread]

[NIIIC]

Fine sorry, I beg your pardon. I absolutely agree with you for your firs paragraph. But

 

I haven't been very clear in my righting. When I said:

"Ho sorry I forgot that a "beautiful wilderness" is more important than fabulous temples, a few hundreds American, English and Iranians soldiers, a few towns and the hole population of a country. Personally I can' see why we shoaled favours a “beautiful wilderness" to all of that. "

 

I didn’t mean that you thought that but I meant that from what you have written, people could understand it like that, example. I sought that after my FIRST reading. But I read the text 3 TIMES and I understood that you meant that I would be sad that Alaska is ruined by American AND European (in know they would do ANYTHING to be able to get there) Industries. But it also could mean what I said before, you agree I hope.

Now talking about not reading the text entirely, I don't think you do neither, because if you would have, you would have understood that I am being hypocrite about that, exaggerating things to show my opposition to it. Now talking about not reading the text entirely, I don't think you do neither, because if you would have, you would have understood that I am being hypocrite about that, exaggerating things to show my opposition to it.

 

Concerning that rest I agree, yes Bush is an easy target, and yes Europeans are the same, but I decided to start that topic on Bush and that is my chose, if you want to start one on an other government I suppose that you are free to and I will happily come in the discussion. and if you want to know why I chose Bush, well it is because it is one his government that I read the most in the newspapers I READ, yes because I do read news papers, even if from reading what I wrought makes you think I don't.

Now I know Europe isn’t clean, Switzerland neither (and what makes you think that Switzerland is my home country) I guess no one is, but actually the one that is the lest discreet and the most mentioned her is the American activities, and as I said before I would happily come and join other topic about that if there are any, but I will have less to say seeing that my newspaper doesn’t talk about it. Now you live, if I am not wrong, in Canada, with means your newspapers tell you all about America and about Europe, and I must say, for what is my news, there is nothing about Canada so I can’t blame there government because they haven’t done anything wrong for what I know. I am saying that because I would like to now what your newspaper have to say about European government because my newspaper won’t tell me, no sincerely if you know any thing about that, I would be pleas to know, as I think anyone would like to know when they are being abused of.

 

And that is one of the man reasons of why I’ve created these topic. It is to compare the news’s I get with the news’s you ALL get. Otherwise there is no interest in debating.

 

 

To finish I use your posts and I quoted you and changed a bit the subject because thought that that isn’t a conversation between just the two of us, it is for every body. That is why I used your posts as a bas for mien. I had nothing against you. It was just a way to mean that I agreed on some of your ideas. Now I am very sorry about the Alaska thing, I thing that this was the thing that enjoyed you the most in my comments. I agree, I might of been a bit confused in my arguments, I was joking when I said that and I know I should o put a Smiley or some thing like that.

Now I hope you will read this post because I wouldn’t want to be the cause of dissentions. But for now I think we should go back to Bush’s government and Moor’s film because I guess people don’t want to come on a topic and find to guys disputing etch other.

 

So sorry again Jahled.

[Jahled]

No worries dude. Obviously, crossed wires!

[NIIIC]

I see that that topic has been forgotten so just to annoy all of you, I am putting it back up the list. Hope I will find some more posts on it when I come back in 3 weeks, so see you then.

[Jahled]

I forgot to point out:

 

I live in London, not Canada*, my friend!

 

*Dad does.

[NIIIC]

yes i know, i realised that in one of zour other posts. i don't know why i thought that you were. ahyes i think it is GTA that comes from Canada. in there mater of a fact, don't consider my self swiss, even if i live there. and i have the swiss nationality, i think wery rear people see there selfs as swiss.

 

see you in 3 weeks, but with little pops in like now, i am in the aeroport in Muniche and there is a free internet stand, so i jumped on the occasion to post a mesage or two.

[Barkoa]

I was considering seeing it, but I'm American! Will it offend me too much? Is it any good? and do I need to see bowling for columbine first?

[Jahled]

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QwBDA8QTCKYmBdXxEUKDdQATOxDtfQ!4XFIqrBcm5SqnP0adVuzklG9CoN2rlsYbsMJw6MXXqn0C6sKjLa3fumSfrLQTdb9RfMr!nmqkqEI/siu.gif

 

***bangs head on keyboard*** not once, not twice, but several times***

 

Edit: Also on the same wave....

[Texas_Fett]

Okay, without rebutting each and every post, let me chime in (again):

 

First off: cool gif, Jahled. That's your best...EVAR!!

 

Secondly, given what Bush, his cabinet, the CIA, British Intelligence, French Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, and Mossad knew about Saddam and his desire to get his hands on WMD's, AND his collusion with Al Qaida AND his rewarding the families of Palestinian Suicide Terrorists, it's little wonder that we didn't attack Iraq, oh, ten or fifteen resolutions ago.

 

Thirdly, I don't classify the Abu Graib (sp?) humiliations as torture, but if my government has to twist a few arms and put panties on a man's head to get info outta some scum terrorist that might prevent another 9/11, or another embassy bombing, or another U.S.S. Cole, or some other god-awful terrorist attack (ESPECIALLY involving WMD's), then I'm all for it. Screw the bastards. As for Guantanamo, those guys wouldn't be there unless they were pointing a gun at our soldiers, so I don't wanna hear any whining for their cases. They're working the system, and the media is looking for anything to use against President Bush. The truth is, Joe Citizen doesn't want to know what must be done to protect him, but all hell breaks loose when something bad happens.

 

Fourth, the U.S.'s dependancy on foreign oil is NOT the end-all answer to our foreign policy. Sure, I'll bet it's part of the equation, but not to the extent that the conspiracy theorists think. We're not getting nearly the amount of oil out of Iraq that we'd be entitled to in order to defray costs, and not enough to account for the bad relations with other Middle Eastern nations. But considering the roadblocks put up by Democrats and Environmentalist whackos here, one has to wonder why all the blame is put on Bush's shoulders.

 

Fifth, the U.N. and pretty much any "civilized" nation is in little position to criticize the actions of the U.S. and her allies on Human rights grounds. I only need to point to the members of the U.N. Human Rights Council to prove my point. Sudan, Rwanda...need I say more?

 

Sixth, we DID find WMD's in Iraq, not just "insecticides". I believe the latest report says enough uranium was found to make 142 Nukes. I'll did up the story if y'all are too lazy to find it yourself. Also, there are the artillery shells containing nerve gas that Saddam claimed he destroyed, but were a violation of the U.N. guidelines. Then there is the buried, late-model Migs, the hints that France was selling weapons to Iraq despite the embargo, the U.N. "Oil for Food" scandal...you name it. NOt that those are WMD's, but they give an idea of the corruption involved that prevented a more cohesive action on the part of the U.N. Security Council.

 

Seventh, Bush is no Nazi. Nazism was fascism with good marketing. Fascism is also not that far removed from Communism and Socialism, which is advocated by the Liberal Left. But don't worry! Brother Kerry and his Salvation Express are going to save us all just as soon as he gets elected. Puh-lease.

 

I'm just gonna end it there.

[Barkoa]

Nice gif!

Thanx Texas Fett, it actually sound v cool! I'm really pro-American enought to get offended!

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

First, Yes Saddam supported suicide bombers, and for that, he's an ass. However, wanting to get WMDs and having WMDs are very different. North Korea is more of a threat, but was pushed out of the lime-light. The U.S. and her allies falsified reports to justify war. By the way, Bush Sr. did the same thing in the first war, though it was MI6 who did the falsification. It takes more than uranium to make a nuclear weapon. There is complex science, as well as other materials (catalysts etc.) to develope such a weapon.

 

As to your criticizm of the UN Human rights council, those countries are exactly those who should be there. THey have suffered through some of the worst Human Rights violations to date. Thier current governments are not those responsible for said atrocities.

 

You don't classify the actions at Abu Graib to be torture? So, if you were arrested for a crime on U.S. soil and the police decided to strip you down and force you to pose in humiliating positions with other's who had yet to be tried and convicted of any crime, you would not think that torture? How could that stop another 9/11? There isn't a connection between Iraq and Al Queda. The "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo are aslo needlessly punished, at least in the sense that they are being held without charge. You say "screw the bastards" and that they "wouldn't be there unless they were pointing a gun at our soldiers". What about the war on the Pacific in WW II. Maybe the Japanese weren't too rough on your troops then? After all, they were pointing guns at Japanese soldiers. Or the treatment of POWs in Vietnam. Yup ,seems fare to me. Maybe the U.S. can pay for a memorial wall in Kandahar for those killed in Afganistan.

 

You speak of corruption in the UN Security Council? Tell me, what country uses it's veto on any action that could have brough peace to Isreal and Palestine, simply because Isreal is the only nation not agianst them in the middle-east? There is no corruption, only a group of countries that didn't agree with what the U.S wanted to do. But I guess down there the U.S. is infallible.

 

I suggest you get your news from somewhere other than CNN. Then again, there isn't a news station that isn't slanted towards your republican party. Get satellite and watch the BBC for objective news.

[Jahled]

Two very good posts. Well done chaps.

 

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0VgCdG40aZbbVNqfoHjwCMWfMT1SNdj85F4029LYr2ZlzUc8usTwytjU!2JeCXOLCruJYpRumV0jeYpwQaVCsOXqmLTbxOdaclkDu2Zm6VddH!lb3twdEleK3fyAbcvlS/totallyamazing%2520pic.gifEnemy of the world.

 

Tex; your own govenment's congressional commitee's findings divorced Iraq from connectins with Bin Slap-head's mob. And you can't hide from what i'm reading everyday in the business-section of a proper newspaer concerning oil prices going all over the place as the news from Iraq comes out with yet more unstability!

 

As for the overall War in Iraq, strange as this may sound comming from me, but what's done is done. an Islamic tyrant is no more and the country has the chance to prosper as a democracy; exploited by the west as the rest of the world is, but such is life. If you like social-equality so much go and live in Cuba or North Korea. But remember to keep your gob shut and don't express your point of view. We need to help the Iraqi people now, especially from the madness of that rebel cleric who amongst other 'enlightened teachings' says that ANY FEMALE US/BRITISH SOLDIER CAPTURED CAN BE A SLAVE. Right on. Bomb his 'holy Mosque,' if that's the type of society he's fighting for.

 

I also believe there is a disaster in Sudan at the moment where upto a million people have lost there lives as a result of systematic genocide by govenment-backed militias. The details are simply horrific. Put simply this is an Arabic-muslim regime exterminating a non-islamic population. So where are the anti-war protesters waving your bits of paper on the streets about this? Where are the mobs of Muslims slapping there hands on the heads or chests in outrage about these Africans loosing their lives? Nowhere.

 

I do not like George Bush. I think his environmental policies suck. But the man has courage. Europe wimpers in the face of these scum and does nothing. His administration is at least doing something. Would Europe just sit back and allow the Taliban to continue to misrule Afganistan? As per normal Europe hides behind a vale of 'respectible conduct' in international matters when it's business is shagging the third world with far more vigour than the US.

 

 

If you quote me do it on masse, not the odd sentance here and there. That way I shall remain your friend.[/img]

[Texas_Fett]

Well said, Jahled!

 

First, Yes Saddam supported suicide bombers, and for that, he's an ass. However, wanting to get WMDs and having WMDs are very different.

Oh, so I should wait until AFTER a homicidal maniac leader of a country (with already determined ties to terrorists) gets his hands on nukes before attacking him? Yeah, that's smart. Wait until AFTER he kills a few MILLION people in a major city or blackmails the rest of the world. Great foreign policy, there. Don't run for public office on THAT platform, dude.

 

North Korea is more of a threat, but was pushed out of the lime-light. The U.S. and her allies falsified reports to justify war. By the way, Bush Sr. did the same thing in the first war, though it was MI6 who did the falsification. It takes more than uranium to make a nuclear weapon. There is complex science, as well as other materials (catalysts etc.) to develope such a weapon.

North Korea is a threat, true, but they're using their threats to get attention and attempt to blackmail the rest of world into giving them what they can't earn themselves. They aren't as high a risk for exporting their nukes to terrorist groups like Al Qaida. They're like a homeless man with a gun demanding food. Granted, it's a big gun, but they can be talked out of it. And they are. "Pushing them out of the limelight", as you term it, is what brought them to the negotiation table!

 

Iraq, on the other hand, hid their WMD program from inspectors, AND defied Seventeen resolutions. Saddam had also shown that he was willing to use WMD's on his own people, and had demonstrated his willingness to cooperate with terrorists and harbor them. Heck, he even provided grounds to train them (Salman Pak). Iraq was clearly the more present danger, given the security holes here in the U.S.

 

And yes, it takes more than uranium to make a weapon. But considering that Saddam had enough to make 142 of 'em, with no other purpose for that uranium, then it's safe to say he was pursuing weaponization of it.

 

As to your criticizm of the UN Human rights council, those countries are exactly those who should be there. THey have suffered through some of the worst Human Rights violations to date. Thier current governments are not those responsible for said atrocities.

Sudan sits on the council right now. You're telling me that they should be able to lecture the U.S. and the rest of the free world on how to treat minorities when there's genocidal extermination going on in their own country? Shah-right. Logical arguement there.

 

You don't classify the actions at Abu Graib to be torture? So, if you were arrested for a crime on U.S. soil and the police decided to strip you down and force you to pose in humiliating positions with other's who had yet to be tried and convicted of any crime, you would not think that torture? How could that stop another 9/11?

No, I classify ripping out fingernails, electrocution, maiming, loss of limbs, putting people into shredders and/or vats of acid, rape rooms, feeding people to starving packs of dogs, et al, as torture. In other words, what happened at Abu Graib under SADDAM as torture. What's happening in Sudan as torture. What happened to POW's in Vietnam as torture. What those American MP's did was only slightly worse than your average college fraternity hazing. It was a humiliation technique that's been in use for centuries, including against our own troops in survival training. And yes, if I had committed a crime on U.S. soil and the police did that, it would be a violation of my civil rights for them to do it. But then, I'm not an enemy combatant who gets his kicks by shooting U.S. Soldiers, mutilating their corpses, and dragging them through the streets in the name of "Allah". I'm not beheading civilians in an attempt to blackmail foreign powers. Those guys in Abu Graib were TERRORISTS, folks. They want you dead, no matter if you agree with them or not. Sympathizing with their cause won't spare you, and is detrimental to the resolution of the War on Terror.

 

It would stop another 9/11 or any other attack if even one of those guys had managed to overhear the plot and spills the beans after being humiliated. That's better than turning him over to the Turks or the Egyptians for interrogation. Hell, even if it only reveals a plot to ambush our servicemen in Iraq, it's worth it.

 

There isn't a connection between Iraq and Al Queda.

Uh, yes there is. Ask the Czechs, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, et al. The British Inquiry report kicked the a$$ of the American one simply because it didn't leave out parts that were politically volatile. It's spelled out for you there, going as far back as the World Trade Center Bombing in 1993. Read the whole report, not just the encapsulated version in the local fish-wrap.

 

BTW, both reports prove that Bush and Blair didn't "lie" about Iraq, or Niger (in fact, it proves that Joe Wilson is the liar). They acted on intelligence that was believed accurate at the time, and was verified by numerous sources, including the intelligence communities of other nations. You can't tell me that in the same position you wouldn't have acted in exactly the same manner. You can play "Monday-Morning Quarterback" all you want, but it doens't change the fact that Bush and Blair did what they HAD to do at the time, and that they acted appropriately.

 

The "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo are aslo needlessly punished, at least in the sense that they are being held without charge.

Why should they get "rights" as if they were American citizens? These ding-bats went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban against their former countries in some cases. And now they want the rights afforded to them by the same countries they raised arms against? They're USING THE SYSTEM, guys, knowing that soft-hearted folks with no stomach for the long-haul will try to get them off. Then they're right back in the desert fighting us again, just as soon as they can get their grubby little hands on another AK-47. Screw that!

 

You say "screw the bastards" and that they "wouldn't be there unless they were pointing a gun at our soldiers". What about the war on the Pacific in WW II. Maybe the Japanese weren't too rough on your troops then? After all, they were pointing guns at Japanese soldiers. Or the treatment of POWs in Vietnam. Yup ,seems fare to me. Maybe the U.S. can pay for a memorial wall in Kandahar for those killed in Afganistan.

The comparison doesn't hold. How many Guantanamo prisoners have died while in captivity? How many are being denied basic human needs; food, shelter, medicine, religious observances, legal counsel, ambassadorial counsel? NONE! Now, how many had that in WWII and Vietnam? NONE! There is NO fairness in the comparison, and you sully the sacrifices of those wars by distorting it so.

 

You speak of corruption in the UN Security Council? Tell me, what country uses it's veto on any action that could have brough peace to Isreal and Palestine, simply because Isreal is the only nation not agianst them in the middle-east? There is no corruption, only a group of countries that didn't agree with what the U.S wanted to do. But I guess down there the U.S. is infallible.

I believe the answer to your question is France.

You want peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Get rid of Arafat. Every time Israel comes up with a concession to end the conflict, Arafat throws it right back in their faces, even when Israel concededs to their every request. The Palestinians want one thing, and one thing only: the elimination of the Jewish State of Israel. They are the ONLY group of refugees in history not to be assimilated into their host countries. Why? Because the host countries won't LET them! They fuel this hatred against Israel when it was THEM that caused their situation! "Flee your homes! We will crush the Jews and you shall have both your home and the home of your Jewish neighbor!" THAT'S what was broadcast over the radio in Jerusalem just prior to the Seven Day War.

 

And now that Israel seeks to defend itself against terrorists that target civilian women and children, the rest of the international community rails against them, ignoring the perpetrators of the violence! It's nonsensical!

 

No corruption at the U.N.?!? Are you blind? You haven't heard about the "Oil for Food" scandal? The "sex parties" for U.N. delegates in other nations? The countless other abuses of their power, the exesses, despite the powerlessness and ineptitude of the organization as a whole? You'd turn a blind eye to the U.N., but criticize the U.S. for enforcing the U.N.'s own resolutions? This goes waaay beyond Iraq, my friend.

 

I suggest you get your news from somewhere other than CNN. Then again, there isn't a news station that isn't slanted towards your republican party. Get satellite and watch the BBC for objective news.

CNN and the BBC are about as left as you can go in their coverage, by their own admission, without receiving their news from groups like MoveOn.org. A Lexus/Nexis search of their choice in story coverage can easily reveal that. So if you think that CNN is a right-wing news organization...then I think you're more entrenched in the liberal left than you care to admit. CNN has prided itself on avoiding pro-Bush news, and the BBC was recently chastized for it's choice in coverage of Tony Blair. "Objective" my a$$. You couldn't pay me to watch CNN...OR the BBC. But if I'm ever in need of the Socialist viewpoint on world events, I'll be sure to tune in.

 

As for news stations "slanted" toward the Republican Party (GOP) here in the U.S....there aren't any. ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN are decidedly anti-Bush in their coverage, with NBC being the least vehement of the group. Fox News at least tries to give equal time, showing both points of view. But to get a truly conservative perspective on the news, the only true recourse is the Internet and talk-radio. I will give you that the major media outlets her in the U.S. are more likely to be pro-American in their coverage, though, but that's to be expected. Although, it's debatable how "patriotic" they are sometimes. Take the New York Times, for example. They outed an Al Qaida mole that was feeding us information on the group's activities.

 

Bottom line: Bush & Blair's policies in the War on Terror are working. Iraq is free. Libya turned over it's WMD program (without a shot fired). Iran is allowing inspectors (without a shot fired). Al Qaida has been crippled. Even more telling, Michael Moore's conspiracy theories have been proven false, and all the lies and rumors about Bush have fallen on deaf ears, except for only those most blind to the facts. Bush and Blair are men of integrity, and you'd have to be a pretty hardened cynic to believe that these men are the Anti-Christ and responsible for all evil in the world. Sure, not all of their policies are gospel. Sure, they don't walk on water. Sure they're not perfect...but then, who is? America has made mistakes. The whole war in Iraq might have been pursued differently IF we knew then what we do now. BUT WE DIDN'T. We did what we thought was right; the President acted as he felt was right. Not out of some adherance to corporate powers. Not out of a need to "finish the job". He did it to protect American citizens.

 

What Thumper said is so true. You can't possibly think that what you see in a five-minute segment on an hour-long news broadcast captures the entire complexity of the day. There is SO much more that happens that doesn't get reported, and rightfully so. Think for yourself when you watch the news. Look at different sources, both liberal and conservative. AND the ones that walk the line. Then decide for yourself. Don't let someone else tell you what to think.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Oh, so I should wait until AFTER a homicidal maniac leader of a country (with already determined ties to terrorists) gets his hands on nukes before attacking him? ... Great foreign policy, there. Don't run for public office on THAT platform, dude.

 

Actually, yes, you should. Attacking before youare actually threatened is called apre-emptive strike, you know, the sort Japan undertook to pull the U.S. in WW II? The sort Germany engaged in to start WW II. No matter who you are , a preemptive strike is a violation of the Rules of War (yes, there are set guildines), and just plain wrong. I know that Saddam as an ass, I'm not arguing against that, but the fact is, you attacking him first is just as bad as him attacking you first. I wold also point out that the foreign policy I would use (as stated above) is much better than near-unilateral action, undertaking a war that destabilizes an entire region, and in the end creates more problems than it solves. Plus, shold I run for office, I would have won.

 

North Korea is a threat, true, but they're using their threats to get attention and attempt to blackmail the rest of world into giving them what they can't earn themselves. They aren't as high a risk for exporting their nukes to terrorist groups like Al Qaida. They're like a homeless man with a gun demanding food. Granted, it's a big gun, but they can be talked out of it. And they are. "Pushing them out of the limelight", as you term it, is what brought them to the negotiation table!

 

You make a good point. They certainly are less likely to sell thier nukes to Al Qaida than Saddam would have been, but then again, Saddam didn't have any nukes, and is the least likely to sell nukes to Al Qaida in the whole of the Middle East, simply because him and Bin *insert-profanityhere-laden* don't like each other. Korea may have been brought around to negotiations, but they've still got the "gun".

 

Iraq, on the other hand, hid their WMD program from inspectors, AND defied Seventeen resolutions. Saddam had also shown that he was willing to use WMD's on his own people, and had demonstrated his willingness to cooperate with terrorists and harbor them. Heck, he even provided grounds to train them (Salman Pak). Iraq was clearly the more present danger, given the security holes here in the U.S.

 

There is nothing to justify these actions, but why not attack Saudi Arabia? Their terrorist training may not be as overt as Iraq's was, but they've more ties to Al Qeda than Iraq. As for the resolutions they defied, that is the UN's fault and should have been dealt with earlier. However, as none of the UN's resolutions can be forceably imposed upon a nation, there really isn't much you can do about it. Perhaps if there was an international body designed to deal with criminals... oh, wait, there is! The International Court of Justice! Yes, it was created to deal with leaders such as Saddam. Sadly your vaunted Bush reneged on Clintons endorsement of said court. Why? Because heaven forbid an American ever be tried for something!

 

And yes, it takes more than uranium to make a weapon. But considering that Saddam had enough to make 142 of 'em, with no other purpose for that uranium, then it's safe to say he was pursuing weaponization of it.

 

His intentions are indeed obviouse, but how long would it take him before he would be able to produce one nuke, let alone 142 of them? Might I also remind you of a certain nation that has the largest number of nuclear weapons in the world. They're not being used in the same manner as North Korea's, but they are being used, in addition to considerable militery strength, to get what they want. "Deterrents" I believe they are being called.

 

Canada has the largest uranium mine in the world, with enough U 238 to make far more than 142 nukes. Hell, we could ship it to whoever we want! (This includes the U.S. We supply the U 238 to be converted into Pl to replace the stuff in your existing nukes). We may want to build a nuclear weapon, and we're right next to you! I know we're not at odds, but the justification is the same. Intent isn't enough, the crime has to be committed.

 

 

Sudan sits on the council right now. You're telling me that they should be able to lecture the U.S. and the rest of the free world on how to treat minorities when there's genocidal extermination going on in their own country? Shah-right. Logical arguement there.[/color]

 

So far my research has shown (much to my embarassment. I should have looked this up earlier.) that the UN Commission on Human Rights only examines problems, but doesn't dictate any policies. In addition, there are 53 other countries on the Commission, including the United States. Topics discussed here are passed on to the ffice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. All UN Human Rights issues are looked after by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, and her staff.

 

No, I classify ripping out fingernails, electrocution, maiming, loss of limbs, putting people into shredders and/or vats of acid, rape rooms, feeding people to starving packs of dogs, et al, as torture. In other words, what happened at Abu Graib under SADDAM as torture. What's happening in Sudan as torture. What happened to POW's in Vietnam as torture. What those American MP's did was only slightly worse than your average college fraternity hazing. It was a humiliation technique that's been in use for centuries, including against our own troops in survival training. And yes, if I had committed a crime on U.S. soil and the police did that, it would be a violation of my civil rights for them to do it. But then, I'm not an enemy combatant who gets his kicks by shooting U.S. Soldiers, mutilating their corpses, and dragging them through the streets in the name of "Allah". I'm not beheading civilians in an attempt to blackmail foreign powers. Those guys in Abu Graib were TERRORISTS, folks. They want you dead, no matter if you agree with them or not. Sympathizing with their cause won't spare you, and is detrimental to the resolution of the War on Terror.

 

Ah, so labeling them "enemy comatants" allows you to distance them. Well, since it's a "War on Terror", they are soldiers in said war. What do enemy soldiers do? SHOOT AT YOUR SOLDIERS!

 

The scum that are beheading innocent civilians are not the same people in Abu Graib. Those prisoners are either regular prisoners, or soldiers from the war. If they were the people who like to take a little too much off the top, they'd be in Guantanamo.

 

No matter how you spin it, their treatment is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document all member nations of the UN signed in 1948.

 

It would stop another 9/11 or any other attack if even one of those guys had managed to overhear the plot and spills the beans after being humiliated. That's better than turning him over to the Turks or the Egyptians for interrogation. Hell, even if it only reveals a plot to ambush our servicemen in Iraq, it's worth it.

 

Then get the information through standard interrogation techniques

 

Uh, yes there is. Ask the Czechs, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, et al. The British Inquiry report kicked the a$$ of the American one simply because it didn't leave out parts that were politically volatile. It's spelled out for you there, going as far back as the World Trade Center Bombing in 1993. Read the whole report, not just the encapsulated version in the local fish-wrap.

 

So you want me to trust the intelligence of A) a fractured nation that's more concerned with internal struggles, B) the same nation that lied to start the first Iraq war, as well as the Falkland Island (and what a mess that was!), and C) a greatly underfunded once-super-power that has a herd enough time keeping it's jets in the air long enough to take arial servailance photos, and has to give tourists flights in thier Migs to fund thier Air Force? Of those only the latter is even slightly trustworthy, and then only because they didn't support the war t begin with. Funny how intel tends to support the wants of the nation providing it.

 

BTW, both reports prove that Bush and Blair didn't "lie" about Iraq, or Niger (in fact, it proves that Joe Wilson is the liar). They acted on intelligence that was believed accurate at the time, and was verified by numerous sources, including the intelligence communities of other nations. You can't tell me that in the same position you wouldn't have acted in exactly the same manner. You can play "Monday-Morning Quarterback" all you want, but it doens't change the fact that Bush and Blair did what they HAD to do at the time, and that they acted appropriately.

 

No, Bush and Blair didn't lie, I know that. And they did act on what information they had. However, you can't expect me to believe that there wasn't some one in the White House who knew the truth. That's the problem with pretty much every government to date (not just U.S., I mean them all), there is always some one who knows more than the leader, and who has their own motives. I don't blame bush, I blame his cabinet.

 

Why should they get "rights" as if they were American citizens? These ding-bats went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban against their former countries in some cases. And now they want the rights afforded to them by the same countries they raised arms against? They're USING THE SYSTEM, guys, knowing that soft-hearted folks with no stomach for the long-haul will try to get them off. Then they're right back in the desert fighting us again, just as soon as they can get their grubby little hands on another AK-47. Screw that!

 

I've already covered this with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Plus, because they're not American, they don't have rights? What if an American soldier is captured by terrorists. Why should they release him if he's just going to be back in thier desert fighting them again, just as soon as he can get his well manicured hands on an M16 again? As soon as the war is over, they have to be released. Go ahead and hold them until that point, they're POWs. However, the conditions they are living in are not acceptable.

 

The comparison doesn't hold. How many Guantanamo prisoners have died while in captivity? How many are being denied basic human needs; food, shelter, medicine, religious observances, legal counsel, ambassadorial counsel? NONE! Now, how many had that in WWII and Vietnam? NONE! There is NO fairness in the comparison, and you sully the sacrifices of those wars by distorting it so.

 

I didn't say that the comparison is a carbon copy for Guantanamo, as you seem to have taken it. However, it is pretty close to Vietnam. Yes, American POWs were treaded far more terribly, but the Vietnamese are attacked for politacl reasons only, very similar to the reasons those at Guantanamo enlisted.

 

I believe the answer to your question is France.

You want peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Get rid of Arafat. Every time Israel comes up with a concession to end the conflict, Arafat throws it right back in their faces, even when Israel concededs to their every request. The Palestinians want one thing, and one thing only: the elimination of the Jewish State of Israel. They are the ONLY group of refugees in history not to be assimilated into their host countries. Why? Because the host countries won't LET them! They fuel this hatred against Israel when it was THEM that caused their situation! "Flee your homes! We will crush the Jews and you shall have both your home and the home of your Jewish neighbor!" THAT'S what was broadcast over the radio in Jerusalem just prior to the Seven Day War.

 

Well, I have yet to see Isreal conceed to all of Palestine's requests. As a matter of fact, all of Israel's requests are unrealistic. You must also remember that Palestine didn't have a choice as as to whether or not Israel went there. The allied nations took the land after the Second World War. Sure the Palestinians weren't using hte land, but it was still theirs.

 

There is no reason the two nations cannot live in peace, but the influence of a superpower backing one side is to blame for the difference of views.

 

And now that Israel seeks to defend itself against terrorists that target civilian women and children, the rest of the international community rails against them, ignoring the perpetrators of the violence! It's nonsensical!

 

Israel has every right to defend its self, but thier actions are now preemptive. Attacking areas that are residential with a tank or helocopter? I don't care if there are] terroists, that is nonsensical.

 

No corruption at the U.N.?!? Are you blind? You haven't heard about the "Oil for Food" scandal? The "sex parties" for U.N. delegates in other nations? The countless other abuses of their power, the exesses, despite the powerlessness and ineptitude of the organization as a whole? You'd turn a blind eye to the U.N., but criticize the U.S. for enforcing the U.N.'s own resolutions? This goes waaay beyond Iraq, my friend.

 

The UN is more than the sum of its parts. Each nation is responsible for taking action and working together. The administrative aspects ofthe UN are really unessicary, only the bodies composed of member nations have any sway. If there is any ineptitude, it is due to the member nations. The U.S. went beyond enforcing the U.N.'s resolutions. The powerlessness of the U.N. is because of member nations who don't get what they want, so they move on thier own. Just because the U.S. can't get its way they thorw a hissy fit and take actions unilaterally or with those who will wupport them. Just because you're the bigest doesn't mean the rest of the world should listen to you.

 

CNN and the BBC are about as left as you can go in their coverage, by their own admission, without receiving their news from groups like MoveOn.org. A Lexus/Nexis search of their choice in story coverage can easily reveal that. So if you think that CNN is a right-wing news organization...then I think you're more entrenched in the liberal left than you care to admit. CNN has prided itself on avoiding pro-Bush news, and the BBC was recently chastized for it's choice in coverage of Tony Blair. "Objective" my a$$. You couldn't pay me to watch CNN...OR the BBC. But if I'm ever in need of the Socialist viewpoint on world events, I'll be sure to tune in.

 

From my experience, anyting CNN covers is decidedly anti-Kerry, and you can't tell me that at station that airs Larry King Live, a dedicated Republican, is not right-wing? I admit they are better his year than last, but in the end, they're pro-bush.

 

As for me being liberal, what of it? That's not the insult here as it is down there. As a matter of fact, guess who I voted for this year? The Liberal Party of Canada. GASP! Your Republicans pride them selves on saving people money. Well, our liberals have been in power for well over 10 years, our country hasn't been in deficit since (by the way, the U.S. is billions, if not more, in debt ), and our taxes have stayed at a comfortable level. Despite my voting habbits, I'm closer to supporting an authoritarian government than anything.

 

As for news stations "slanted" toward the Republican Party (GOP) here in the U.S....there aren't any. ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN are decidedly anti-Bush in their coverage, with NBC being the least vehement of the group. Fox News at least tries to give equal time, showing both points of view. But to get a truly conservative perspective on the news, the only true recourse is the Internet and talk-radio. I will give you that the major media outlets her in the U.S. are more likely to be pro-American in their coverage, though, but that's to be expected. Although, it's debatable how "patriotic" they are sometimes. Take the New York Times, for example. They outed an Al Qaida mole that was feeding us information on the group's activities.

 

You need only look at the Saturday morning US political shows to see that most networks are in fact pro-bush.

 

Bottom line: Bush & Blair's policies in the War on Terror are working. Iraq is free. Libya turned over it's WMD program 9without a shot fired). Iran is allowing inspectors (without a shot fired). Al Qaida has been crippled. Even more telling, Michael Moore's conspiracy theories have been proven false, and all the lies and rumors about Bush have fallen on deaf ears, except for only those most blind to the facts. Bush and Blair are men of integrity, and you'd have to be a pretty hardened cynic to believe that these men are the Anti-Christ and responsible for all evil in the world. Sure, not all of their policies are gospel. Sure, they don't walk on water. Sure they're not perfect...but then, who is? America has made mistakes. The whole war in Iraq might have been pursued differently IF we knew then what we do now. BUT WE DIDN'T. We did what we thought was right; the President acted as he felt was right. Not out of some adherance to corporate powers. Not out of a need to "finish the job". He did it to protect American citizens.

 

So the tactics taken in the War on Terror are working? The world (save the coalition of the "willing") are agains the U.S., we are no closer to finding Osama than before, terrorists are still striking around the world, and I think the terror level just went up. Yup, we're all much safer. We've turned the corner:wink:. Iraq is certainly free... well, if you ignore the constant battles, hundreds of deaths, car bombing, militant groups, beheadings, grenades, tanks, and general carnage. But we can balance that all out by taking some ofthe shots fired in Iraq and distributing them to Libya and Iran. Makes things look much nicer.

 

No, I don't think Bush and Blair are the anti-christ, and they did act on with what they had, but why did the rest of the world know enough to stay out? And no, the whole thing can't be blamed on America's thirst for oil, that just doesn't stand on its own.

 

He did it to protect American citizens? Are soldiers considered citizens? if so, he should really discuss that with the families ofthe 500+ killed in recent months in Iraq. I thought he was doing it to protect the citizens of Iraq from Saddam, but I don't think those blown apart by rockes, bombs, and mortars, or buried under rubble would agree.

 

America has made mistakes.

 

Sorry, just had to point this out again

 

What Thumper said is so true. You can't possibly think that what you see in a five-minute segment on an hour-long news broadcast captures the entire complexity of the day. There is SO much more that happens that doesn't get reported, and rightfully so. Think for yourself when you watch the news. Look at different sources, both liberal and conservative. AND the ones that walk the line. Then decide for yourself. Don't let someone else tell you what to think.

 

Absolutely true. The news has a time limit, and they only hsow what the owner of hte station would think pertinent. That's why I read the news paper, two to be more exact. I always read the left and right of the situation and find that it is usually somewhere in the middle, though occasionally it is to one side.

 

If we're going to keep this up, can we keep it short? My hands are killing me from all this typing!

[Barkoa]

Far out! You guys have a lot to say. I'll try to see the movie over this weekend so I can join the discussion! I hadn't heard of most of this stuff before! It sounds...interesting.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

I don't think either Fett, nor myself have actually seen the movie. We're just big on keeping up-to-date on current, and past, events.

[Texas_Fett]

I'm a bit rushed for time this morning, so I'll have to keep my responses short. I'm enjoying the debate though, Thrawn.

 

Actually, yes, you should. Attacking before youare actually threatened is called apre-emptive strike, you know, the sort Japan undertook to pull the U.S. in WW II? The sort Germany engaged in to start WW II. No matter who you are , a preemptive strike is a violation of the Rules of War (yes, there are set guildines), and just plain wrong. I know that Saddam as an ass, I'm not arguing against that, but the fact is, you attacking him first is just as bad as him attacking you first. I wold also point out that the foreign policy I would use (as stated above) is much better than near-unilateral action, undertaking a war that destabilizes an entire region, and in the end creates more problems than it solves. Plus, shold I run for office, I would have won.

I've got problems with that assumption.

 

1) Japan and Germany attacked with intent to conquer, not to thwart a dictator with nuclear weapons. Japan was feeling the squeeze on its oil supply. Who knows what Hitler was thinking.

2) Pre-emptive strikes are part of the "Just War" doctrine put forth by St. Augustine. They are most certainly part of the "Rules of War", especially when that preemptive strike prevents futher death and carnage.

3) FDR assembled nine whole allies for WWII. Dubya had 39 (or 32...I'd have to double check). His father got, what?, 150 for the first Gulf War, and that has somehow become the benchmark for any new conflict. The War in Iraq was far, far, FAR from unilateral. It just lacked the endorsement of France, Germany, and a few of the older and louder members of the U.N.

 

You make a good point. They [Korea] certainly are less likely to sell thier nukes to Al Qaida than Saddam would have been, but then again, Saddam didn't have any nukes, and is the least likely to sell nukes to Al Qaida in the whole of the Middle East, simply because him and Bin *insert-profanityhere-laden* don't like each other. Korea may have been brought around to negotiations, but they've still got the "gun".

I'll assume that you'll change your tune for this argument after the report yesterday about the underground research facility at Al Tawaitha(sp?)...the same place where the yellow-cake uranium was found. He was actively pursuing "the bomb".

 

There is nothing to justify these actions, but why not attack Saudi Arabia? Their terrorist training may not be as overt as Iraq's was, but they've more ties to Al Qeda than Iraq. As for the resolutions they defied, that is the UN's fault and should have been dealt with earlier. However, as none of the UN's resolutions can be forceably imposed upon a nation, there really isn't much you can do about it. Perhaps if there was an international body designed to deal with criminals... oh, wait, there is! The International Court of Justice! Yes, it was created to deal with leaders such as Saddam. Sadly your vaunted Bush reneged on Clintons endorsement of said court. Why? Because heaven forbid an American ever be tried for something!

1) Saudi Arabia needs to have more done to it than just a slap on the wrist. The export of Wahabi Islam to our shores (especially to our prison inmates) is alarming, and I hold the Saudi's to blame. They're on my list, but let's deal with the immediate threats first.

2) UN resolutions would hold some weight if there were actual consequences for violating them. If they won't do it, and there's a Clear and Present Danger to America, you're damn skippy we'll do it for 'em.

3) The World Court was objected to because there were folk who wanted to try individual U.S. soldiers for deeds done while on missions in other countries, whether there was evidence for the deed or not. For example, all it would take is a false charge of genocide and the dressing up (or down) of enemy corpses to make it appear that the U.S. slaughtered innocents. Rather than have that type of frivolous litigation hanging over the U.S. when we're continuously called upon to act as the world's police force, we sought exemption. Besides, the U.S. track record on punishing it's own for wrongdoing is admirable. Take Abu Graib, for instance. It only came to light because the Department of Defense was wrapping up a 6-month investigation and had started trials & punishment phases for those involved. The system works, folks.

 

His intentions are indeed obviouse, but how long would it take him before he would be able to produce one nuke, let alone 142 of them?

Considering what they've unearthed in Iraq, we couldn't possibly say for certainty. But it wouldn't have been long.

 

Might I also remind you of a certain nation that has the largest number of nuclear weapons in the world. They're not being used in the same manner as North Korea's, but they are being used, in addition to considerable militery strength, to get what they want. "Deterrents" I believe they are being called.

That would be Russia. The U.S. stockpile was drastically reduced, while the Soviets gave lip-service to the treaty. Ukraine has a lot of 'em now, but Russia still has a vast stockpile.

 

Canada has the largest uranium mine in the world, with enough U 238 to make far more than 142 nukes. Hell, we could ship it to whoever we want! (This includes the U.S. We supply the U 238 to be converted into Pl to replace the stuff in your existing nukes). We may want to build a nuclear weapon, and we're right next to you! I know we're not at odds, but the justification is the same. Intent isn't enough, the crime has to be committed.

I'm sure our nations would have words if it came to light that Canada was selling weapons to rogue states or terrorist organizations. But seeing as we tend to work together more often than not, there's no reason to censure Canada for it's uranium production. On top of that, the IAEC (International Atomic Energy Committee, right? Might have gotten the acronymn wrong) monitors the production and mining of U.N. members. So long as they abide by that oversight, there's no need for action.

 

So far my research has shown (much to my embarassment. I should have looked this up earlier.) that the UN Commission on Human Rights only examines problems, but doesn't dictate any policies. In addition, there are 53 other countries on the Commission, including the United States. Topics discussed here are passed on to the ffice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. All UN Human Rights issues are looked after by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, and her staff.

Subject closed then, right?

 

Ah, so labeling them "enemy comatants" allows you to distance them. Well, since it's a "War on Terror", they are soldiers in said war. What do enemy soldiers do? SHOOT AT YOUR SOLDIERS!

The Real difference is that most are NOT soldiers fighting for a nation-state, and are therefore not entitled to POW status. They are terrorists. "War on Terror" simply is a way to show just how serious the situation against them is. Of course, the futility of the "War on Drugs" makes you question the choice in that slogan.

 

The scum that are beheading innocent civilians are not the same people in Abu Graib. Those prisoners are either regular prisoners, or soldiers from the war. If they were the people who like to take a little too much off the top, they'd be in Guantanamo.

 

No matter how you spin it, their treatment is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document all member nations of the UN signed in 1948.

They are terrorists and enemy combatants that may or may not know where Osama and other Al Qaida leaders are, and/or have knowledge of other plots against Western nations. Giving them any other status and allowing them rights as if they were a common criminal impedes the War on Terror and compromises the safety of every non-Muslim (and even some of them, too!)

 

Then get the information through standard interrogation techniques

That just my point! Abu Graib WAS standard interrogation techniques for a civilized nation like the U.S.! There was no NEED for physical torture when humiliation, phychological warfare, and protein deprivation will get the same results. "Torture", as defined by the Geneva convention, is never even a part of the process.

 

So you want me to trust the intelligence of A) a fractured nation that's more concerned with internal struggles, B) the same nation that lied to start the first Iraq war, as well as the Falkland Island (and what a mess that was!), and C) a greatly underfunded once-super-power that has a herd enough time keeping it's jets in the air long enough to take arial servailance photos, and has to give tourists flights in thier Migs to fund thier Air Force? Of those only the latter is even slightly trustworthy, and then only because they didn't support the war t begin with. Funny how intel tends to support the wants of the nation providing it.

Considering that it was part of an investigation post-invasion, including Intel we have NOW that indicates we were in the right, I'd say yes. Unless you'd rather believe Al-Jazeera and the conspiracy theorists.

 

No, Bush and Blair didn't lie, I know that. And they did act on what information they had. However, you can't expect me to believe that there wasn't some one in the White House who knew the truth. That's the problem with pretty much every government to date (not just U.S., I mean them all), there is always some one who knows more than the leader, and who has their own motives. I don't blame bush, I blame his cabinet.

There may have been someone who suspected, or had doubts, but considering that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (including Sen. Kerry, I might add) had access to the SAME intelligence and agreed with the President's assessment, it seems utter folly to think that some clerk at Langley's gut feeling would override the consensus of the whole U.S. Intelligence apparatus, British Intelligence, Mossad, Russian Intelligence, French Intelligence, private assertions by King Huessein of Jordan, Pres. Mubarak of Egypt, et al.

 

Bottom line is that everyone knew Saddam was guilty of having an active WMD program (and he did), but nobody wanted the U.S. to DO anything since they had too much invested in Iraq to support the fall of the regime. I.E., the "Food for Oil" scandal. The U.S. and the "Coalition of the Willing" just had the balls to act.

 

I've already covered this with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Plus, because they're not American, they don't have rights? What if an American soldier is captured by terrorists. Why should they release him if he's just going to be back in thier desert fighting them again, just as soon as he can get his well manicured hands on an M16 again? As soon as the war is over, they have to be released. Go ahead and hold them until that point, they're POWs. However, the conditions they are living in are not acceptable.

They have rights, but shouldn't be considered an American Citizen for the purpose of deciding their legal rights. Human rights dictate that the prisoner receive medical treatment, adequate food, shelter, and religious ministration. I have a feeling the international community would be pissed with the U.S. if they were keeping these yahoos in the Hilton.

 

Contrast how the prisoners are kept for both sides. Those insurgent cowards behead their prisoners even though they don't get their way. That's not earning them any sympathy. But the U.S. is the villian for keeping their prisoners healthy? Makes no sense to me.

 

I didn't say that the comparison is a carbon copy for Guantanamo, as you seem to have taken it. However, it is pretty close to Vietnam. Yes, American POWs were treaded far more terribly, but the Vietnamese are attacked for politacl reasons only, very similar to the reasons those at Guantanamo enlisted.

You lost me, there. Are you saying that the motive for Vietnam was political, and that it's the same thing for the War in Iraq?

 

Ask Senator McCain whether or not the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is comparable to what he endured in Vietnam.

 

Well, I have yet to see Isreal conceed to all of Palestine's requests. As a matter of fact, all of Israel's requests are unrealistic. You must also remember that Palestine didn't have a choice as as to whether or not Israel went there. The allied nations took the land after the Second World War. Sure the Palestinians weren't using hte land, but it was still theirs.

Which side has backed out of each and every peace proposal after an agreement has been tentatively reached?

 

"Palestine" was a British Protectorate until after WWII. It was given to the Israelis in order to give them a homeland and a nation-state status. There was no such nationality as "palestinian" prior to that, simply Arabs of different nationalities that lived in the region of "Palestine". Also, there were already Jews living there, with a history spanning back over four thousand years, thoughout the Muslim conquest and the Crusades. You can't insist that the land was solely "palestinian".

 

There is no reason the two nations cannot live in peace, but the influence of a superpower backing one side is to blame for the difference of views.

Partly, but also the stubborn insistance of the "Godfather" of all terrorists, Yassir Arafat. But I'd also point out that the U.S. has supported giving the palestinians land that was historically theirs (Gaza Strip, etc.), but the palestinians are never satisfied.

 

Israel has every right to defend its self, but thier actions are now preemptive. Attacking areas that are residential with a tank or helocopter? I don't care if there are] terroists, that is nonsensical.

Ask yourself if we're getting the full story. A Hamas cell hides in a residential complex, building several suicide-bomber belts and fostering a hatred of everything Israeli. Mossad discovers the whereabouts of the facility, and strikes at a time when they are sure to incur the least collateral damage, thus preventing a strike upon Israeli AND palestinian civilians.

 

And that's wrong?

 

I know this goes back to your being against the policy of preemption, but in this case it's justified.

 

The UN is more than the sum of its parts. Each nation is responsible for taking action and working together. The administrative aspects ofthe UN are really unessicary, only the bodies composed of member nations have any sway. If there is any ineptitude, it is due to the member nations. The U.S. went beyond enforcing the U.N.'s resolutions. The powerlessness of the U.N. is because of member nations who don't get what they want, so they move on thier own. Just because the U.S. can't get its way they thorw a hissy fit and take actions unilaterally or with those who will wupport them. Just because you're the bigest doesn't mean the rest of the world should listen to you.

It's not a "hissy fit", it's bypassing the gridlock of the U.N. and getting the job done. Enforcing the U.N.'s resolutions for them when they don't have the balls to do it themselves. Putting a bite into the resolutions and proving that there's a reason to even have a "United Nations" in the first place.

 

Being the biggest DOES mean the rest of the world should listen to you, especially when the U.S. fronts the cost of 24% of the U.N., more than four times as much as the next highest contributor. We constantly shoulder the burden, contribute the troops, fund the activities, yet whenever WE ask for assistance we're ridiculed and reviled. Worse yet, they actively work against U.S. interests out of some pathetic envy of our position atop the world power structure. "The U.S. isn't taxed high enough", scream the socialists. "The U.S. should bear the brunt of Kyoto, even though China is a larger polluter (but we'll exempt them, of course)," say the environmentalists. Well, we've had it! We are NOT the the beck-and-call girl for the U.N. We have our interests, and we help look out for the interests for other nations. We gave over $50 million to Kenya last year in foreign aid. Why? We give foreign aid to other nations that actively oppose us in the U.N. Why? Because we're NOT some arrogant nation of 'imperialist' militants bent on furthering the agendas of multinational corporations! Surprisingly, despite all the vitriol thrown our way, we actually care about the welfare of the rest of the world.

 

From my experience, anyting CNN covers is decidedly anti-Kerry, and you can't tell me that at station that airs Larry King Live, a dedicated Republican, is not right-wing? I admit they are better his year than last, but in the end, they're pro-bush.

So if a station airs the views of a Republican, they must have pro-Republican bias? (And I sincerely doubt Larry King is a 'dedicated' Republican, given his guest lists and the softball questions he gives guests like Hillary Clinton) Well, that must mean that Fox News is a liberal station, since it airs the views of Alan Combs. And CBS had an interview with a Republican last week, so that off-sets the admittedly liberal views of Dan Rather. CNN is NOT right-wing, and never has been. There's a reason why it's referred to as the "Clinton News Network". Their reporting is so far to the left, it's astounding. Look at the ratings for proof! Fox is trouncing them, despite being in fewer households and in fewer markets. And they're the last network to report anything negative about the Kerry campaign, a practive they perfected under the Clinton Administration. There's a reason Bush will only give interviews to NBC and Fox. CNN hates the Bush Adminstration.

 

As for me being liberal, what of it? That's not the insult here as it is down there. As a matter of fact, guess who I voted for this year? The Liberal Party of Canada. GASP! Your Republicans pride them selves on saving people money. Well, our liberals have been in power for well over 10 years, our country hasn't been in deficit since (by the way, the U.S. is billions, if not more, in debt ), and our taxes have stayed at a comfortable level. Despite my voting habbits, I'm closer to supporting an authoritarian government than anything.

Yet you're taxed at a much higher rate than U.S. citizens, and your healthcare system makes our HMO's look good. Your military is so broke it contemplated merging activities with ours in 1999. And things are so swell that the entire province of Quebec wants to secede. Your borders are unbelieveably porous, and your nation sports less than a quarter the population of the U.S. Your national budget is eclipsed by that of Texas (who has no state income tax, btw), your inflation rate is higher than the U.S.'s, and your currency valuation is nearing half of the U.S. dollar.

 

Yup. Things are definitely better north of the border.

 

(BTW, I was born in Barrie, Ontario, so I have dual-citizenship and am, in fact, partly slamming myself.)

 

You need only look at the Saturday morning US political shows to see that most networks are in fact pro-bush.

Well, first off they're on Sunday mornings, not Saturday. Secondly, when you have hosts like George Stephenopolous (former Clinton spin-meister) hosting a show, and the most "conservative" host you have is Tim Russert, then the objectivity of the talking-head gab-fests is called into question. They have a history of pouncing on any potentially damaging information involving a Conservative or Republican, yet bend over backwards to explain away Democrat scandals. Tim Russert has a rep for agressively attacking his guests, researching and memorizing every known fact about that person. People dread facing Russert. Yet he ignores facts that could be embarassing for characters like Bill & Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and most prominent Democrats.

 

So the tactics taken in the War on Terror are working? The world (save the coalition of the "willing") are agains the U.S., we are no closer to finding Osama than before, terrorists are still striking around the world, and I think the terror level just went up. Yup, we're all much safer. We've turned the corner:wink:. Iraq is certainly free... well, if you ignore the constant battles, hundreds of deaths, car bombing, militant groups, beheadings, grenades, tanks, and general carnage. But we can balance that all out by taking some ofthe shots fired in Iraq and distributing them to Libya and Iran. Makes things look much nicer.

Has there been another domestic attack? No. Is there a problem with the insurgents? Yes. Will it be dealt with? Damn skippy.

 

Things are better, but we'll never be back to the same footing we were pre-9/11.

 

No, I don't think Bush and Blair are the anti-christ, and they did act on with what they had, but why did the rest of the world know enough to stay out? And no, the whole thing can't be blamed on America's thirst for oil, that just doesn't stand on its own.

 

He did it to protect American citizens? Are soldiers considered citizens? if so, he should really discuss that with the families ofthe 500+ killed in recent months in Iraq. I thought he was doing it to protect the citizens of Iraq from Saddam, but I don't think those blown apart by rockes, bombs, and mortars, or buried under rubble would agree.

Dear Lord, please explain to Mr. Thrawn how you fight a war. Thank you. Amen.

 

What, you thought we could do it without any casualties? That there wouldn't be innocent people tragically slain in the conflict? In what war hasn't that happened? And I suppose Kerry's "kindler, gentler, more sensitive War on Terror" is the answer, right?

 

America has made mistakes.

Sorry, just had to point this out again

What, surprised I'd admit that?

 

Absolutely true. The news has a time limit, and they only hsow what the owner of hte station would think pertinent. That's why I read the news paper, two to be more exact. I always read the left and right of the situation and find that it is usually somewhere in the middle, though occasionally it is to one side.

{emphasis mine}

That's where the bias creeps in.

 

If we're going to keep this up, can we keep it short? My hands are killing me from all this typing!

Well, I'm probably going to have to quit anyway, what with my leaving. But I've said my piece. Any rebuttal to your rebuttal will have to wait 'til November. It needs to be shortened, though, you're right.

[Jahled]

And that's a 'short morning post' Tex?

 

Remind me to bring some popcorn next time...

 

Edit:

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLGK4W5lpPTDLRXKLORQt9Wx1t84w7EcdAJefdBe2VInmnOsgfhdF!4lqEgPfSnvuOoJcCsY!*qp!GJwg2mV6tCXMK3RWCv3oKLOn2wNImROQSqyWE6A/khomeini_Woo0.gif

[Texas_Fett]

Sorry...I hit my stride and never looked back.

 

Much love for ya, Thrawn!

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

I'm also rushed... so I'll leave my reply (and actually reading Fett's post) 'till later. Don't worry folks, I'll edit this post to answer.

[Jahled]

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QwDrAiQU!akzIWMW9Z12PfgbXz75!XN0yxpl7F4I1BEmUEjKZf!0hbh9Uo07rJx1qxH!KpjF1!auEJUoMFN1UDCNkDPDtxFrs8u4mQss*94/Sense_1.gif

 

 

Good hunting US/British snipers tonight!

 

Kill them.

[Lord_La_forge]

Moore's way to present those facts is just as manipulative as pro-U.S. American propaganda.

 

That's why I like him! His stupidity and agressive style just balances the goverment's manipulative gibberish.

 

(Otherwise, neutral I am. )