Originally posted by jdun1 Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by hazmats I don't lke the estate tax because it occurs at the death of a person. Just because somone is rich doesn't mean they should be taxed for everything they do.
A proverb comes to mind here. To whom much is given, much is required.
Because of the capitalistic Goverment, the little man is just getting poorer and poorer and the rich are getting richer. While lower class people live pay check to pay check... or maybe they are alittle more well off. They are still struggling. While upper class people just sit there accumating money. They are more than able to give more back to the community.
ANDD estate tax isn't only for the rich. It's for everyone. But the thing is while a lower class person may get 1,000 - 50,000 in assets.. (no basis just supposition) a rich person can get millions.
It doesn't seem fair that Just so a rich person can keep the 50,000 dollars they pay in taxes... the government has to cut funding to schools... hospitals... government agencies.... ORR increase other taxes to make up for the loss.. and Guess who that kills... The lower class people.
Oh capitalism doesn’t work, huh? Let see how communism and socialism did. In Soviet times everyone was poor. You have to wait 10 hours just to get a roll of toilet paper, meat, etc. Sure it was free but you have to wait 10 hours and God forbid they went out of it in the first 10 minute. Now lets look at those former communist nations that turn into capitalism. Kids that were born after the end of communism will start to complain if their food was not serve to them within 2 minute.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Lets look at socialism. The majority of people are one buck above poverty, over 10% unemployment, and up to 30% unemployment for people that are under 30 is that a success story? Do you think that is a success? Let me put it this way. You have two schoolteachers, both make 40k (adjusted for region) each year. One own a home with two cars, the other live in a run down apartment in the ghetto and ride the city bus. What’s the difference? One has low tax the other is tax over 60%. One lives in the capitalist USA the other live in socialist France. Taxes doesn’t hurt the rich it only hurt the middle class and keep the poor from moving upward. That is the true facts of things. The rich can move to another country like the USA or an island, while the poor will stay poor and the middle class will become poorer. My socialist country seems to be doing fine, as do any number of others, I'll bet I'm richer than you. My country is certainly a much nicer place. Communism is still the single most successful form of government on the planet. I like capitalism too. i'm a big fan, but trying to compare penis's between political and economic systems would be very ignorant indeed.
Originally posted by jdun1 The UN, hells if the Congress allows me I would gladly invade the UN and so do a lot of people that I know of. Do you think the US or the majority of the US population give a damn about the UN. We want the UN to be disbanded. <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->We pick our fight and those who threaten our safety will be dealt with.
By the looks of it the majority of the U.S. don't give a damn about anything outside the U.S.
Originally posted by jdun1 Oh capitalism doesn’t work, huh? Let see how communism and socialism did. In Soviet times everyone was poor. You have to wait 10 hours just to get a roll of toilet paper, meat, etc. Sure it was free but you have to wait 10 hours and God forbid they went out of it in the first 10 minute. Now lets look at those former communist nations that turn into capitalism. Kids that were born after the end of communism will start to complain if their food was not serve to them within 2 minute.
Lets look at socialism. The majority of people are one buck above poverty, over 10% unemployment, and up to 30% unemployment for people that are under 30 is that a success story? Do you think that is a success? Let me put it this way. You have two schoolteachers, both make 40k (adjusted for region) each year. One own a home with two cars, the other live in a run down apartment in the ghetto and ride the city bus. What’s the difference? One has low tax the other is tax over 60%. One lives in the capitalist USA the other live in socialist France. Taxes doesn’t hurt the rich it only hurt the middle class and keep the poor from moving upward. That is the true facts of things. The rich can move to another country like the USA or an island, while the poor will stay poor and the middle class will become poorer.
ummmm thats not what I was saying... I was simply saying that capitalist government isn't really helping the lower/ lower-middle class people. Capitalism isn't helping to close the gap between rich and not-rich. I'm not saying comunism is better... Although If communism could be executed without greed or selfishness and with dedication to the people. I think communism would be really good.... But sadly that's not how the world works. Power crupts. I dont think we'll ever have a perfect government.
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
I thought everything was settled when the Republicans started saying, "But Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction." I know suddenly I felt the war was justified.
Are the Republican's still claiming that the oil from the Iraqi oil fields is going to pay for this war? I'm just curious. I remember hearing that leading up to everything. I'm a little tight on cash right now, and I don't think my pocketbook is up to building a school or hospital in another nation. At least not right now. My gasoline costs too much.
Wow, the sincere ignorance of this thread has become prodigious.. maybe if the "popinjay's" would stop posting people might actually agree with each other.
Originally posted by jdun1 Tell me how rich are you? Can't be that rich when you are tax over 50% of your work. Are you even working or living in welfare?
What do you call success? Does success means that their entire population can’t even get decent general goods? Does success means that everyone is poor and a drunk? Does success means that their ideology is no more?
Do you have any idea how stupid that statement was? Are you trying to suggest that everyone in the U.K. and other European countries is a poor drunk person who can't afford to buy the weekly groceries? Because that sure as hell is what it sounds like you're trying to say.
My guess is that you've never even been to Europe. You really should go some time. I think you'd be completely amazed at how happy and technologically advanced those "poor drunks" over in Europe actually are.
Saying that socialist practices don't work and leave people in perpetual poverty is completely stupid and uninformed.
Schutzbar - Human Warrior - Windrunner Alliance - World of Warcraft Nihilanth - Kerra Paladin - Blackburrow - EverQuest II XBL Gamertag - Eagle15GT
Many "UN haters" seem to forget why the UN was created in the first place. It was created to prevent the worst massacre and slaughtering in human history from happening again. There is no political institution in the world today that is more important. A control organ upon all nations by all nations. It can probably be organized better, done in another way, but it should never be removed.
Originally posted by Phoenixs Many "UN haters" seem to forget why the UN was created in the first place. It was created to prevent the worst massacre and slaughtering in human history from happening again. There is no political institution in the world today that is more important. A control organ upon all nations by all nations. It can probably be organized better, done in another way, but it should never be removed.
/agree
Schutzbar - Human Warrior - Windrunner Alliance - World of Warcraft Nihilanth - Kerra Paladin - Blackburrow - EverQuest II XBL Gamertag - Eagle15GT
Originally posted by Phoenixs Many "UN haters" seem to forget why the UN was created in the first place. It was created to prevent the worst massacre and slaughtering in human history from happening again. There is no political institution in the world today that is more important. A control organ upon all nations by all nations. It can probably be organized better, done in another way, but it should never be removed.
QUESTION 1: How many wars have there been since the United Nations founding? Question 2: How many people have have died in wars since the United Nations founding? Question 3: Why is the genocide in Darfur continuing? Question 4: Why did Benon Sevan's aunt, right before the time she was about to be questioned about the six-figure sum in his bank account(supposedly he got the cash from his elderly aunt) end up at the bottom of an elevator shaft? Question 5: Why do the united nations "peace keepers" rape little girls?
<<Originally posted by methane47 No i dont hate Bush because of the War... To tell you the truth the war is just a small thing... for me... I think it's neccessary just the overhead to it was obviously lies and fabricated truths.... Anyways I dislike bush because of his local descisions..
His no child left behind that has even more children left behind now and left more schools without funding.>>
Education funding has gone up dramatically under his administration.
<<His tax cuts that tax us more..>>
In what way exactly?
<<His endorsing of NSA spying>>
Listening to calls coming in from overseas from known terrorist numbers? That's nowhere near as bad as Clinton's Echelon program where he was monitoring all calls here and using them to spy on businesses and his enemies.
<<His backing up of Tax breaks for rich peoeple >>
Tax breaks for the rich? That's pure garbage. Those with higher incomes naturally get more money back from tax breaks simply because they pay far morein taxes. Someone who makes 30k a year pays far less in taxes than someone making 100k per year. The top 10 percent of income earners pay something like 60 percent of all taxes paid. That's ridiculous. And no, I am not in that group... maybe one day.
<<His trying to destroy the estate tax... (who does it affect? rich people)>> It affects all of us, thwe rich even more so, and needs to be abolished. The democrats are vehemently opposed to removing it. They vote it down every time. Bush cannot change it himself, as he is not a dictator with total control, despite what we're told by the other side.
<<His putting ill equipt soldiers in harms way (bad body armor)>> In the words of Rummy, 'you don't go to war with the army you wish you had, you go to war with the one you sdo have'. This issue has been and is being addressed, if not as fast as I would have liked.
<<Homeland Security....... Who exactly is that securing?>> More government beaurocracy created by all of our political 'leaders' who just wanted to appear to be doing something.
<<Immigration issues?>> Noone seems to want to do the right thing on this issue.
<<trying to block pharmacuticals from Canada? Because aparantly Canadian medicine is badddd...>> No, because it would be STUPID. The pharmaceutical companies sell their drugs to Canada at a discount because Canada threatens to violate patent laws and deconstruct patented drugs that the pharmaceutical companies have spent millions researching. And then you want us to buy those drugs from the Canadians? Canada doesn't have enough to sell back to us, and have said that they would not be agreeable to this. The fact is the reason costs for medicine in the US are so high is that we are subsidizing the rest of the worlds drug costs. If you would like us to stop doing that, then make the case for it.
<<Forcing Canadians near the border to purchase an expensive ID card to get into the US? For what? THE CANadian illegal IMmigrant problem??!!? come on!?!>>
We already have all the Canadians we want here... Pamela Anderson, Michael J. Fox and Rick Springfield are enough, dammit! And we took their hockey! That's enough! Unless we can get a hold of Molson, but that's all we want.
Originally posted by JustinTime Originally posted by Phoenixs Many "UN haters" seem to forget why the UN was created in the first place. It was created to prevent the worst massacre and slaughtering in human history from happening again. There is no political institution in the world today that is more important. A control organ upon all nations by all nations. It can probably be organized better, done in another way, but it should never be removed.
QUESTION 1: How many wars have there been since the United Nations founding? Question 2: How many people have have died in wars since the United Nations founding? Question 3: Why is the genocide in Darfur continuing? Question 4: Why did Benon Sevan's aunt, right before the time she was about to be questioned about the six-figure sum in his bank account(supposedly he got the cash from his elderly aunt) end up at the bottom of an elevator shaft? Question 5: Why do the united nations "peace keepers" rape little girls? Answer 1: Alot. But none remotely close to WW2. UN was created to try to prevent this from happening, to keep nations communicating and not fight wars on their own. Like I mentioned UN has problems. One of them might be that it isn't a military power, it can't go in and actively fight a war. Another might be that it hugely depends on it's member nations to do something. If USA etc refuses to do anything with a conflict the chances are big that nothing is going to be done. Answer 2: Counting everything about 50-51 million (1945-2000). WW2 killed 62 million in 5 years. Answer 3: Many reasons. But the UN is there and tries to maintain the peace, there is also talk now about sending a big UN force down there. They where infact going to sign the final peace threaty, but then the parts broke the deal. It's not all about the UN, it also depends on the active parties in the conflict, they have to do their part also. The UN can't come in and say this is how it should be. Answer 4: I don't know about this, but again the UN isn't perfect and neither are humans. Big organisations will always have dirt like this. Answer 5: A few sick people have gotten jobs in the peacekeeping forces.
What is your alternative to the UN? USA? HAHAHAHAHA There is no valuable alternative to the UN in the world today, that can try to maintain the interests of all nations in this world.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by lardmouth http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/ "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later: · A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research. · A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN. · Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons. · New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN. · Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS). · A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit. · Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN. · Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi. · Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment
This is the kay report, it has nothing to do with the U.N.
The U.N. report is the Blix report.
The important thing to remember about the U.N. is that while anyone may provide evidence to the U.N, only the U.N. council can make a decision. They decided that they didn't have enough evidence, or that evidence was not damning enough to warrant military action.
What Kay has to say about it is a red herring. It is not for any single country to decide what is and what isn't against U.N. rulings. The whole point of the U.N. is that after WW2 this dangerous kind of unilateralism should never happen again. We have a council so that the individual needs or wishes of any given country are tempered by the wishes of all the others.
The UN and several nations on the security council were being taking money in the Oil for Food scandal in order to prevent the war. That nullified their authority as far as I'm concerned. they are a worthless organization, just as the League of Nations was.
Originally posted by robbykl1415 This story and argument is so retarded. If saddam had some empty tubes or whatever let the man have the tubes. I mean are they really going to reach THAT FAR to try and justify this war?
yes the are......because they had some mustard gas and tubes which hadn't been seen since the gulf war......i love the media and i love the president..................................
Originally posted by Necran My sources have informed me America has over 2000 nuclear bombs, also they invented pretty much all the chemical and biological weapons known to man, someone should really stop them if you ask me.
You honestly think that the BBC is a fair news source? ALL news organizations are biased. Fox News is conservative, BBC is liberal. Learn to find the information yourself, don't trust any one source.
we all know who owns fox"news" and his relationship with bush, we also know fox"news" has started selling products as a news story (skin creams) i no longer belive that fox "news" (yea i know im just driving home the point) can be trusted to give a balanced view on current events seems its all twisted into making you think something or buy something try this news scource
The U.N. reminds me of the U.S. under the articles of confederation.
Anyway, the links about the WMDs reference degraded shells of weapons. There was a lot of reporting on this early on in the war by all of the news organizations, and the consensus was established that this had nothing to do with the WMDs that Iraq was supposed to have when the U.S. invaded.
Originally posted by bhagamu The U.N. reminds me of the U.S. under the articles of confederation.
Anyway, the links about the WMDs reference degraded shells of weapons. There was a lot of reporting on this early on in the war by all of the news organizations, and the consensus was established that this had nothing to do with the WMDs that Iraq was supposed to have when the U.S. invaded.
As Media Matters for Americadocumented, nearly every June 21 Fox News program between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET touted Santorum and Hoekstra's disclosure. Santorum and Hoekstra's claims, however, had been quickly dismissed by Pentagon officials and the intelligence community. As CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on CNN's The Situation Room shortly after the announcement, "Charles Duelfer, the CIA's weapons inspector, tells us the weapons are all pre-Gulf War vintage shells, no longer effective weapons. Not evidence, he says, of an ongoing WMD program under Saddam Hussein." The Washington Post also reported June 22 that "[n]either the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
Originally posted by Tzale You honestly think that the BBC is a fair news source? ALL news organizations are biased. Fox News is conservative, BBC is liberal. Learn to find the information yourself, don't trust any one source.
The BBC is a government organisation, when they published the evidence that Blair knew he was lying when he said Saddam could hit our soldiers in Turkey with WMD's, everybody got the sack.
Don't expect any seriously critical journalism coming out of the BBC. All British media is subject to government censorship. The BBC is the government. This is our propaganda machine.
Freedom of speech is a privilage here, not a civil right.
The UN and several nations on the security council were being taking money in the Oil for Food scandal in order to prevent the war. That nullified their authority as far as I'm concerned. they are a worthless organization, just as the League of Nations was.
Several nations including the U.S. and Great Britain.
Kofe Annan said George Bush entered an illegal war and the Bush administration fought back and started saying everyone who says that has been bribed by Saddam, and when they couldn't get any dirt about Kofe, they went for his son until he shut up.
Personally I find CBC the Canadian Publically Owned News organization, to be much more neutral than I find many other stations such as CNN, MSNBC, and of Course Fox News.
That said, I generally find all news organizations sadly too accomadating when it comes to politics, its not that I want them to stake a position, I would prefer that they QUESTION they government more.
Regardless of the issue they are asking about I think they should ask WHY their way is better than the other ways, I think they should quote statistics, I think they should hold politicians accountable and not allow them to avoid the question.
I also believe very strongly that they should not allow propaganda from the parties to become news. The parties have been very good at "spining" and staging outrages in order to get free air time.
Comments
To whom much is given, much is required.
Because of the capitalistic Goverment, the little man is just getting poorer and poorer and the rich are getting richer. While lower class people live pay check to pay check... or maybe they are alittle more well off. They are still struggling. While upper class people just sit there accumating money. They are more than able to give more back to the community.
ANDD estate tax isn't only for the rich. It's for everyone. But the thing is while a lower class person may get
1,000 - 50,000 in assets.. (no basis just supposition) a rich person can get millions.
It doesn't seem fair that Just so a rich person can keep the 50,000 dollars they pay in taxes... the government has to cut funding to schools... hospitals... government agencies.... ORR increase other taxes to make up for the loss.. and Guess who that kills... The lower class people.
Oh capitalism doesn’t work, huh? Let see how communism and socialism did. In Soviet times everyone was poor. You have to wait 10 hours just to get a roll of toilet paper, meat, etc. Sure it was free but you have to wait 10 hours and God forbid they went out of it in the first 10 minute. Now lets look at those former communist nations that turn into capitalism. Kids that were born after the end of communism will start to complain if their food was not serve to them within 2 minute.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Lets look at socialism. The majority of people are one buck above poverty, over 10% unemployment, and up to 30% unemployment for people that are under 30 is that a success story? Do you think that is a success? Let me put it this way. You have two schoolteachers, both make 40k (adjusted for region) each year. One own a home with two cars, the other live in a run down apartment in the ghetto and ride the city bus. What’s the difference? One has low tax the other is tax over 60%. One lives in the capitalist USA the other live in socialist France. Taxes doesn’t hurt the rich it only hurt the middle class and keep the poor from moving upward. That is the true facts of things. The rich can move to another country like the USA or an island, while the poor will stay poor and the middle class will become poorer.My socialist country seems to be doing fine, as do any number of others, I'll bet I'm richer than you. My country is certainly a much nicer place. Communism is still the single most successful form of government on the planet. I like capitalism too. i'm a big fan, but trying to compare penis's between political and economic systems would be very ignorant indeed.
By the looks of it the majority of the U.S. don't give a damn about anything outside the U.S.
Foreign is a dirty word for some people.
I'm not saying comunism is better... Although If communism could be executed without greed or selfishness and with dedication to the people. I think communism would be really good.... But sadly that's not how the world works. Power crupts. I dont think we'll ever have a perfect government.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Are the Republican's still claiming that the oil from the Iraqi oil fields is going to pay for this war? I'm just curious. I remember hearing that leading up to everything. I'm a little tight on cash right now, and I don't think my pocketbook is up to building a school or hospital in another nation. At least not right now. My gasoline costs too much.
--------------------------------------
Do you have any idea how stupid that statement was? Are you trying to suggest that everyone in the U.K. and other European countries is a poor drunk person who can't afford to buy the weekly groceries? Because that sure as hell is what it sounds like you're trying to say.
My guess is that you've never even been to Europe. You really should go some time. I think you'd be completely amazed at how happy and technologically advanced those "poor drunks" over in Europe actually are.
Saying that socialist practices don't work and leave people in perpetual poverty is completely stupid and uninformed.
Schutzbar - Human Warrior - Windrunner Alliance - World of Warcraft
Nihilanth - Kerra Paladin - Blackburrow - EverQuest II
XBL Gamertag - Eagle15GT
Schutzbar - Human Warrior - Windrunner Alliance - World of Warcraft
Nihilanth - Kerra Paladin - Blackburrow - EverQuest II
XBL Gamertag - Eagle15GT
Question 2: How many people have have died in wars since the United Nations founding?
Question 3: Why is the genocide in Darfur continuing?
Question 4: Why did Benon Sevan's aunt, right before the time she was about to be questioned about the six-figure sum in his bank account(supposedly he got the cash from his elderly aunt) end up at the bottom of an elevator shaft?
Question 5: Why do the united nations "peace keepers" rape little girls?
Question 2: How many people have have died in wars since the United Nations founding?
Question 3: Why is the genocide in Darfur continuing?
Question 4: Why did Benon Sevan's aunt, right before the time she was about to be questioned about the six-figure sum in his bank account(supposedly he got the cash from his elderly aunt) end up at the bottom of an elevator shaft?
Question 5: Why do the united nations "peace keepers" rape little girls?
Answer 1: Alot. But none remotely close to WW2. UN was created to try to prevent this from happening, to keep nations communicating and not fight wars on their own. Like I mentioned UN has problems. One of them might be that it isn't a military power, it can't go in and actively fight a war. Another might be that it hugely depends on it's member nations to do something. If USA etc refuses to do anything with a conflict the chances are big that nothing is going to be done.
Answer 2: Counting everything about 50-51 million (1945-2000). WW2 killed 62 million in 5 years.
Answer 3: Many reasons. But the UN is there and tries to maintain the peace, there is also talk now about sending a big UN force down there. They where infact going to sign the final peace threaty, but then the parts broke the deal. It's not all about the UN, it also depends on the active parties in the conflict, they have to do their part also. The UN can't come in and say this is how it should be.
Answer 4: I don't know about this, but again the UN isn't perfect and neither are humans. Big organisations will always have dirt like this.
Answer 5: A few sick people have gotten jobs in the peacekeeping forces.
What is your alternative to the UN? USA? HAHAHAHAHA
There is no valuable alternative to the UN in the world today, that can try to maintain the interests of all nations in this world.
This is the kay report, it has nothing to do with the U.N.
The U.N. report is the Blix report.
The important thing to remember about the U.N. is that while anyone may provide evidence to the U.N, only the U.N. council can make a decision. They decided that they didn't have enough evidence, or that evidence was not damning enough to warrant military action.
What Kay has to say about it is a red herring. It is not for any single country to decide what is and what isn't against U.N. rulings. The whole point of the U.N. is that after WW2 this dangerous kind of unilateralism should never happen again. We have a council so that the individual needs or wishes of any given country are tempered by the wishes of all the others.
The UN and several nations on the security council were being taking money in the Oil for Food scandal in order to prevent the war. That nullified their authority as far as I'm concerned. they are a worthless organization, just as the League of Nations was.
[quote]Originally posted by Vercades
[b]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Thanks lardmouth-
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/][/b][/quote]
Even president Bush admits there weren't any WMDs in iraq. Listen to what he says on the subject.
-----------------------------
Want to get into the game industry? Read the game business advice guide.
Also read GameDev and Gamasutra
Download Impulse - Like steam but only DRM Free Games
Anyway, the links about the WMDs reference degraded shells of weapons. There was a lot of reporting on this early on in the war by all of the news organizations, and the consensus was established that this had nothing to do with the WMDs that Iraq was supposed to have when the U.S. invaded.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
and
Excerpt:
As Media Matters for America documented, nearly every June 21 Fox News program between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m.
ET touted Santorum and Hoekstra's disclosure. Santorum and
Hoekstra's claims, however, had been quickly dismissed by Pentagon
officials and the intelligence community. As CNN national security
correspondent David Ensor reported on CNN's
The Situation Room shortly after
the announcement, "Charles Duelfer, the CIA's weapons inspector, tells us the weapons
are all pre-Gulf War vintage shells, no longer effective weapons. Not evidence,
he says, of an ongoing WMD program under Saddam Hussein." The Washington Post also reported June 22 that
"[n]either the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the
shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a
current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
Anyone remember the two soldiers that were exposed to the sarin artillery shell?
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2925362.php
The BBC is a government organisation, when they published the evidence that Blair knew he was lying when he said Saddam could hit our soldiers in Turkey with WMD's, everybody got the sack.
Don't expect any seriously critical journalism coming out of the BBC. All British media is subject to government censorship. The BBC is the government. This is our propaganda machine.
Freedom of speech is a privilage here, not a civil right.
They key to this article can be found in this line.
Asked whether the incident will prompt the Army to make all soldiers wear protective chemical gear, she said, “It hasn’t so far.”
If the army aren't taking it seriously, why are you?
Several nations including the U.S. and Great Britain.
Kofe Annan said George Bush entered an illegal war and the Bush administration fought back and started saying everyone who says that has been bribed by Saddam, and when they couldn't get any dirt about Kofe, they went for his son until he shut up.
That said, I generally find all news organizations sadly too accomadating when it comes to politics, its not that I want them to stake a position, I would prefer that they QUESTION they government more.
Regardless of the issue they are asking about I think they should ask WHY their way is better than the other ways, I think they should quote statistics, I think they should hold politicians accountable and not allow them to avoid the question.
I also believe very strongly that they should not allow propaganda from the parties to become news. The parties have been very good at "spining" and staging outrages in order to get free air time.