Originally posted by nakuma HEY EVERYONE!!! LET OUR HEADS OUT OUR ASSES! AND GET BACK TO BERATING AND MAKING FUN OF SOE, AND SHARING OUR OFF-CENTERED, INFANTILE, BEGUILED, SELF-ABSORBED VIEWS ON WHAT GAMES ARE BAD AND WHY.
CAN WE?? LOL huh? PLEASE... THESE TOPICS ARE TRULY IDIOTIC HOLD NO PURPOSE IN A WEBSITE CALLED "MMORG.COM" IF U WANNA TALK ABOUT WMD'S GO TO CNN.COM OR FOXNEWS.COM or SOME INDEPENDENT BLOG SITE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THIS.
Lol, sorry I have a bad habit of getting most active topic alot. :P
Are you saying that atrocities only happen in big crowds?
I'm saying far more murders happen in a big city compared to a rural town. Yes, the numbers of troops are vastly different. You would expect that if crimes were to occur it would happen within the higher population. Such as the far, far, far higher number of US troops compared to the other nations. The numbers are so much greater than the next country down (the UK) you can't seriously even try to make a comparison. And, I haven't even talked about the next point coming up.
it's not just the number of crimes, or even the ratio of crimes/soldier, (which is vastly higher) it's also the nature of them.
Despite fighting on all the same battlefields and patrolling and operating identical duties on the same streets no other coalition crimes include institutionalised torture and buggery, massacres, child murder, weddings bombed, cities levelled, persistent civilian casualties, shooting up friendlies and civilians at checkpoints.
Ok, hold on here. No, you can't say same "patrolling," "identical duties," "on the same streets," etc. Take those disproportionate numbers above...now let's add to the fact that the US forces are even more disporportionately involved in the most dangerous areas. Insurgent hotbeds where insurgents fight amongst the civilian population from civilian houses, hospitals, mosques. Look up how the various coalition contries are stationed. Look at what regions they're responsible for. Again, the US takes the brunt of that. Civilian casualities and friendly fire will always be a part of war. Always. Especially when amongst civilian centers being attacked by often non uniformed militias in the midst of those civilians.
And yet in the southern shia regions with identical rural and political structures , the U.S. troops are killing everyone and the other countries aren't.
No one else is doing that. They are not "doing it less". They are not doing it at all.
And I didn't even really try. This is just from looking through the BBC and searching under UK. I'll let you investigate the allegations against all other nations involved in the coalition.
I'm well aware of all these. See any bombed weddings, Dead Italians troops at checkpoints, systematic torture and abuse on an institutional scale, see any massacres of civilians, see any collaterol damage, or a succession of friendlies killed?
No. The troops work to different rules, A British soldier is not allowed to return fire unless an officer identifies the target. A british soldier can be prosecuted for War crimes by anyone in the world.
When a British soldier is prosectued for war crimes, they try the chain of command above him too.
The standards they are held to are much higher. they have the operating procedures in place to govern them more effectively.
If U.S. forces outnumber coalition forces 4:1, shouldn't we expect 1/5 of all dehumanised behaviour to be commited by coalition soldiers?
Well, let's factor in how many of the other coalition forces are deployed and patrolling the most dangerous regions. And, as above, you're wrong about other nations not having any allegations and investiongs against their soldiers.
Allegations and investigations aren't the problem, its the events. Handcuffing a prisoner and lifting him up on a forklift, isn't sticking your fist up his a(nd hundreds more) arse daily and elctrocuting his nipples nightly while you dog shags him. I suggest you take a good look at what those other nations are investigating.
As for more dangerous places? British troops patrol in just as dangerous areas as any the U.S. do. Don't kid yourself. So do the Ukrainians. Worse even. British casualty rates are almost double those of the U.S.
In fact British troops work side by side with U.S. troops and wear U.s. uniforms and equipment and joint patrol or patrol the same area's. They have directly witnessed U.S. procedure and operating methods. We work side by side, we know exaclty what the differences are. The more nations troops we fight with, the more oportunities we have to learn from them, both in what they do right, and what they do wrong.
On a case by case level it's impossible to judge these "crimes" without being there. But taken as an overall picture, trends become apparent.
But, you haven't taken an "overall picture."
Let me guess the overall picture is that Iraqi's all love americans, the abuses are just commited by a select few, and that the chain of command in no way trys to cover them up and every abuse ever exposed has been volunteered by the pentagon and not caught by an investigative journalist. Please. Who are trying to kid?
How many of those investigations you discuss were brought about as a result of internal military protocol. None.
It's not just numbers, it something altogether different. It's the same problem the SS had. It's attitude.
Oh hogwash. The numbers of crimes committed by our service men are absolutely miniscule compared to the amount of men we have over there and the nature of the enemy they're fighting.
I agree, but they are still relatively far higher than their counterparts acting in the same operational spheres. Further to this the"nature of the enemy" has no bearing at all on infanticide or the scenes photographed in Abu Gharaib. None. The only nature that has bearing on is the nature of the people doing it.
.
To rectify this situation U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq are now being taught ethics.
They have always been taught ethics and military conduct. The honorable soldiers (the VAST majority) are getting nothing more than a refresher course.
Lmao, you need to teach your troops ethics? After a wave of getting caught committing atrocities you need to give them a refresher? Shouldn't they just automatically have a sense of ethics as regular human beings? Sorry but this a response to an actual problem not part of an education program for the general betterment of army life.
The US should NEVER sign up to the ICC. What a disgrace to not allow a soldier to be tried and convicted by his own country. We've convicted in Abu and we'll in Haditha if that pans out to be the case. Name me an occupation with a nature of enemy like that in Iraq (stuffing a mans severed penis in mouth) and I'll find you some war crimes committed by your "idols" of peace keeping.
Every occupation ever has this nature. I'm sure you will find war crimes commited by troops of other allied nationalties. I don't for a minute think they are super human or U.S. troops sub human. However troops are trained for different purposes. A shock trooper like a U.S. Marine or an S.S. is trained for a higher level of aggression than a peacekeeper. Further to this his command structure is not trained for peace keeping roles and they have not practised this kind of operation. Most importantly, their experience is limited. They have not learnt many of the lessons by trial and error in previous campaigns.
You've convicted in Abu Gharaib, but you haven't convicted the chain of command and won't. The only reason you convicted at all is that the pictures got released on international TV. There are no working systems within you army to effectively bring this kind of behaviour to book internally, hence why ABU and Haditha took 6 months to be found out, and were only "investigated" once they became a propaganda issue. There are no effective systems of complaint that an Iraqi can pursue. American troops are above the local law and unlike other coalition troops above international law also.
The beauty of the ICC, which is totally hated by British troops as they get investigated and hung out to dry over any old nonsense by any old hippy, is threefold.
No. 1 it cycles the troops out of possible flashpoints. When the troops are accused they are removed from areas of obvious tension, and sent somewhere to cool off. (Or in true army style be given shit of a different nature in court).
No.2 It gives the locals (and the world) a form of redress against them outside of military command. Institutionalised abuse cannot be covered up(as easily). It also gives troops within the system a modus of complaint outside of the chain of command.
No.3 It places the impetus on national military trials to be fair and transparent, if they are not seen to be self regulating effectively, there is a higher court they can be taken too. If you want your troops to behave to a higher standard, you must set them one and set up a means of enforcing it.
Master race thing going on? Our military is rather represenative of many ethnicities, religions, cultures. What are you talking about? Saddam killed far many than 10, 000. We're not going to lose this war. We will live without beating the insurgency. It's not the plan to stick around till they vanish. We'll stay long enough to allow military commanders (coalition and Iraqi) to feel confident that the Iraqi forces are competent and capable to take over. We can't lose, because ultimately we're not planning to win it. The Iraqis will have to do that.
Yes, master race thing, the belief that an American life is worth more than an Iraq life (shoot first policy). The belief that the American system of government is superior to the Iraq system of government, race means more than skin colour and ethnicity. If American troops think anything like all the SuperRepublicanMen that post on forums like here, you can easily imagine that they deeply believe foreigners to be inferior.
Saddam killed more than 10,000. So what? What he did in Iraq over a twenty year period, Bush and Blair have done yearly since they got there. That's the nature of the country. Now that Americans are the defacto rulers of Iraq and have found themselves doing exactly the same things as Saddam did to stay in control, will they recognise their own humanity? Or will they still think they are superior?
If that's all your war aims are, you aren't much use to us as an ally. Go home now, you're just making things worse.
A government be it local, occupational, puppet or even a brutal cruel dictatorship cannot survive without the consent of it's population. If we cannot maintain military bases and domination over the government, this entire war has been for nothing. In fact since we will have better united most of the world against us, it will be for the worse.
Installing a democracy isn't enough, it has to be a friendly and complient democracy. (In fact all it has to be is friendly and compliant). If the Iraqi's democratically elect an anti western government (Hamas style) or a Pro Iranian government, we have lost the war. Our leaders will doubtless find a way of still saying they won, but they won't have.
Originally posted by Anageth Originally posted by Vercades http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html Um, if they started finding these WMDs around 2003, wouldn't they have said so? It would have saved them a world of embarrassment.
They did, it was just grossly under reported.
Under reported? Meaning... it didn't happen, so it couldn't be reported? Cause, if Osmama even sneezes it gets reported. WMDs in Iraq not getting reported... now we're getting silly.
Originally posted by Fadeus
Originally posted by viadi Originally posted by Vercades http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html 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
Ah yes ofcourse, an entire corporation just putting out completely false information as a favor for a buddy...
How obvious, your insight is astounding.
Not buddy. Family. Your lack of facts and assertions there-of are astounding.
We can agree to disagree, or we can bicker constantly... either way, I'm right. SobaKai.com There are two types of people in this world - people that suck... and me.
Originally posted by baff And yet in the southern shia regions with identical rural and political structures , the U.S. troops are killing everyone and the other countries aren't. I love how you use unquantified statements. "...killing everyone and the other countries aren't . Allegations and investigations aren't the problem, its the events. Handcuffing a prisoner and lifting him up on a forklift, isn't sticking your fist up his a(nd hundreds more) arse daily and elctrocuting his nipples nightly while you dog shags him. I suggest you take a good look at what those other nations are investigating. Wow, I provide proof against your "not committing any" claim and this is your best answer? Like I said, it took me about 5 minutes on BBC to find just those allegtions of torture and shooting civilians. Take your blinders off and get rid of your bias. That fact that you even attempted to brush this off outs you as having a bias. And if Allegations and investigations aren't the problem, hold the individual soldiers that have been CONVICTED accountable. Remember allegations and investigations aren't the problem. As for more dangerous places? British troops patrol in just as dangerous areas as any the U.S. do. Don't kid yourself. So do the Ukrainians. In fact british troops work side by side with U.S. troops and wear U.s. uniforms and equipment and joint patrol or patrol the same area's. They have directly witnessed U.S. procedure and operating methods. We work side by side, we know exaclty what the differences are. The more nations troops we fight with, the more oportunities we have to learn from them, both in what they do right, and what they do wrong. Are you kidding me? The bulk of the measly number of british troops have it easy compared to the bulk of the US troops. They are not patrolling in proportionate numbers the most dangerous areas. The British have mostly been responsible for some of the least dangerous southern areas. And some of the other nations aren't involved in combat patrols at all. Period. Japan, for instance was involved in reconstruction, and that's basically it.
Let me guess the overall picture is that Iraqi's all love americans, the abuses are just commited by a select few, and that the chain of command in no way trys to cover them up and every abuse ever exposed has been volunteered by the pentagon and not caught by an investigative journalist. Please. Who are trying to kid? You mean like the allegations exposed by the BBC against the UK? Oh yeah, you brushed that off rather quickly. Who are you trying to kid? How many UK commanders have skewed reports? How many coverups are they sitting on? Nope, I forgot that's inconveniant for you arguement. Shhh. How many of those investigations you discuss were brought about as a result of internal military protocol. None. Wrong, Abu Gharaib, for one had already been under investigation before it got to the press. And other incidents are investigated when command gets information that something has occured. And, not every allegation is going to be true. Some have been shown to be false, in fact. I'm sorry to inform you of this. I agree, but they are still relatively far higher than thier counterparts acting in the same operational speres. Because, yet again, not one of these counterparts have anything even remotely close to the numbers of troops...I can't stress this enough. It's not even remotely close. US = about 130,000...the second highest, the UK= about 8000.... Lmao, you need to teach your troops ethics? After a wave of getting caught committing atrocities you need to give them a refresher? Shouldn't they just automatically have a sense of ethics as regular human beings? Sorry but this a response to an actual problem not part of an education program for the general betterment of army life. Yes, they're taught ethics. And? A wave? Compared to what? How many proven with hard facts? How many are just allegations that could very well be groundless? How many convicted? What violent struggle against such a brutal and destructive insurgency do you make your comparison to? Of course they have a strong sense of ethics as human beings. That's why the vast, vast, vast majority have served honorably.
Every occupation ever has this nature. I'm sure you will find war crimes commited by troops of other allied nationalties. I don't for a minute think they are super human or U.s. troops sub human. However troops are trained for different purposes. A shock trooper like a U.S. Marine or an S.S. is trained for a higher level of aggression than a peacekeeper. Further to this his command structure is not trained for peace keeping roles and they have not practised this kind of operation. Most importantly, their experience is limited. They have not learnt many of the lessons by trial and error in previous campaigns.
You've convicted in Abu Gharaib, but you haven't convicted the chain of command and won't. The only reason you convicted at all is that the pictures got released on international TV. There are no working systems within you army to effectively bring this kind of behaviour to book internally, hence why ABU and Haditha took 6 months to be found out, and were only "investigated" once they became a propaganda issue. Nope, ABU was already under investigation when the photos made it to the public. Haditha was being investigated after photos showed the soldiers report was false. Photos are good evidence of a contradiction in claims. Sometimes that's the only that these contradictions become visible. The beauty of the ICC, which is totally hated by British troops as they get investigated and hung out to dry over any old nonsense by any old hippy, is threefold. Wow, sounds like a wonderful system for troops who are willing to die for their country. Congrats. Our soldiers swear an oath under our constitution. They will be investigated and convicted under own constitution. No. 1 it cycles the troops out of possible flashpoints. When the troops are accused they are removed from areas of obvious tension, and sent somewhere to cool off. (Or in true army style be given shit of a different nature in court). No.2 It gives the locals (and the world) a form of redress against them outside of military command. Institutionalised abuse cannot be covered up. It also gives troops within the organisation a system of the complaint outside of the chain of command. No.3 It places the impetus on national military trials to be fair and transparent, if they are not seen to be self regulating effectively, there is a higher court they can be taken too. If you want your troops to behave to a higher standard, you must set them one and set up a means of enforcing it.
Yes, master race thing, the belief that an American life is worth more than an Iraq life (shoot first policy). The belief that the American system of government is superior to the Iraq system of government, race means more than skin colour and ethnicity. If American troops think anything like all the SuperRepublicanMen that post on forums like here, you can easily imagine that they deeply believe foreigners to be inferior. Your whole biased and blindered attitued is the biggest example of the SuperRepublicanMen. You've done nothing, absolutely nothing, but talk about how horrible our troops are. You compare them to Saddam and the SS. You're the one with the blatant superiority complex. Get over your self. There is no shoot first policy. Our troops in the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of combat operations and while under attack, have done nothing, but operate with the greatest amount of honor. Saddam killed more than 10,000. So what? What he did in Iraq over a twenty year period, Bush and Blair have done yearly since they got there. That's the nature of the country. Now that Americans are the defacto rulers of Iraq and have found themselves doing exactly the same things to stay in control, will they recognise their own humanity? Or will they still think they are superior? You are joke to even compare the amount of murders (intent to kill civilians/prisoners) committed by an extremely small amount of the 130, 000 US forces to Saddam's deliberate and sanctioned targeting of civilians for mass murder, torture, execution. If that's all your war aims are, you aren't much use to us as an ally. Go home now, you're just making things worse. Now I'm going to get a bit nasty with you. How about actually sending some troops instead of that token number you're so proud of? Us, not being of much use? Yeah, tough talk from someone in the UK. Your 8,000 stationed in mostly the less hostile of areas aren't much use to us, truth be told. Go home. Seriously, I'd rather not have the UK there anymore. I'm sick of the stuck up superior attitude that comes from over there. I'd love to see, in the future, the US declare that your side of the world is left to you folks. I think we should sign peace treaties with N. Korea and Iran. Tell them go ahead, do whatever they want, we'll be hands off. They can be the future problems of your so called superior soldiers. Peacekeep that. A government be it local, occupational, puppet or even a brutal cruel dictatorship cannot survive without the consent of it's population. If we cannot maintain military bases and domination over the government, this entire war has been for nothing. In fact since we will have better united most of the world against us, it will be for the worse. Installing a democracy isn't enough, it has to be a friendly and complient democracy. (In fact all it has to be is friendly and compliant). If the Iraqi's democratically elect an anti western government (Hamas style) or a Pro Iranian government, we have lost the war. Our leaders will doubtless find a way of still saying they won, but they won't have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_of_Saddam_Hussein Look at Saddam's show trial, and remember that one day, you will lose a war too. One day that mock trial will be for your leader. A mock trial????? Saddam's trial is a mock trial? Wow, there goes that superior attitude of yours. The iraqis can't run a trial, I quess? Take your snooty superior yesteryear UK attitude and stick it.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the confederate flag. It is part of history and is a distinguishable icon of the south. Before there was such a thing as a confederate flag the slave trade flourished under the US and other nations' flags. Perhaps, those too should be done away with too?
I skimmed alot of your posts, some random lines for you all to think about:
Treason is a relative thing; democrats and republicans all but changed sides 45 years ago so bashing on democrats for something done in the 1860s is irrelevant to contemporary politics; there are no wmd's in iraq, chuck norris lives in texas; look up the rally-round-the-flag effect, and try comparing it to Bush's political agenda and the republican party's support of that agenda; war tends to inflate national expenditure, but it never comes down.
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.
Acctully Germany was the first, and they used them in WW1. Get your facts straight before you spew your "The USA is EVIL" crap.
Originally posted by jmd10222 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.
Acctully Germany was the first, and they used them in WW1. Get your facts straight before you spew your "The USA is EVIL" crap. This was a joke right? A terrible one maybe?
Or did I miss something? The nuclear bomb was actually discovered earlier than history says it was? And by different guys than what history says? Did I sleep in some history lesson?
Sorry i was referring to Chemical weapons. I should have pointed that out, and my tone was off, Im just sick of all the BS. Im just gonna stay out of these threads. I come here to discuss MMO's and find out whats new in the MMO world. Peace and goodwill to everyone
Originally posted by lardmouth There is absolutely nothing wrong with the confederate flag. It is part of history and is a distinguishable icon of the south. Before there was such a thing as a confederate flag the slave trade flourished under the US and other nations' flags. Perhaps, those too should be done away with too?
the united states in cooperation with the WTO puts people in far worse conditions than slaves ever were.
at least slave owners had a responsibliity to their slaves because of the monetary value inherent therein.
now corporations can pay people starvation wages and screw them completely over, because there is no responsibility.
america's treatment of minorities in other countries via corporate affairs has much much worsened since the slave trade.
slavery would be a blessing, compared to the sweatshops we have now.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Reviewing this forum has been a joy. I can take comfort in these uncertain times that somethings in the universe will always remain constant. Liberals will always be irrational, loud mouthed, out of touch retards. Good to know, I can sleep more comfortably at night knowing I'm not one of them.
1 - If you're going to say something, make an argument instead of an unfounded generalization or an ad hominem.
2 -
J0kerr1: Saddam himself thought he had WMD. He didn't let the inspectors do their job because of this. This led us, and many other countries, to beleive he had weapons. We do know he broke UN sanctions (good job of the UN holding them to those). We do know he was looking to stockpile materials.
The book Cobra II by Michael Gordon has a section detailing how Mr. Hussein's generals believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons and fully expected Saddam to authorize their use during the invasion period. Saddam, however, revealed to them that he had no weapons after all and that he was only employing a ruse against Iraq's next door neighbor, Iran. His generals were, needless to say, dismayed that they would not be able to pull out those secret weapons. Bottom line: Saddam knew that Iraq didn't have active WMDs.
3 -
J0kerr1: Lying, I want you to prove the Bush intentiolaly lied to the public. I know you can't, because he didn't. Now I can point to another time someone lied, but we won't go there. "I will tell you once more time, I did not point to a president who lied to the nation and obstructed justice."
Your first sentence, I'm guessing, left out "Administration" after Bush. On this premise: Lie: On March 30, 2003, 11 days after the war in Iraq began, in an interview, Donald Rumsfeld stated: "We know where they are", referencing the WMDs in question. Afterward, a CIA report was released declaring that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
So you know they lied. How can I prove that they intentionally did it? I'm not sure, Karl Rove has been a pretty good coach for Mr. Bush, and motives are well hidden among the administration. But I ask you to consider this:
From: The New York Times, March 27, 2006 ==News== During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003 ... "The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin." ... The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
From: CNN.com, March 18, 2003 ==Bush issues Ultimatum to Saddam== Saying the "danger was clear" that the Iraqi regime would provide terrorists with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, President Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 48 hours for him and his sons to leave Iraq before military action begins "at a time of our choosing."
What you should understand from these two articles is this: Bush and Blair planned to invade Iraq "penciling in" a date for war regardless of what Saddam did. The New York Times article referenced a memo. Please see the second paragraph of the article - both the president and the prime minister acknowledge that no unconventional weapons had been found in Iraq, and yet they sought to invade anyway. The argument that the administration was not in the slight bit deceitful cannot be soundly made.
As for the comment about Bill Clinton: Clinton lied about a blowjob, Rumsfeld lied and brought America into a war. Consider the difference.
4 - In reference to a comment made about Fox news exhibiting a right-wing agenda.
J0kerr1: This is the mind-numbing crap coming out of the liberial cult. Fox news seems right because it is the only news that tries to be in the center. Bill, if you actually listened to him and not repeat what your superiors say, picks on anyone he seems as doing wrong (whcih has been right and left people).
As for more biased news...New York Times might be looking at legal issues that accuse them of treason.
You're merely the second conservative out of many I've met in my entire life who has actually tried to say that Fox news is not a right-wing biased news source. I disagree with you, and I'm sure even the producer of Fox News, off the record, would disagree with you as well. What I would have you consider is this: while ABC, CNN, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times, CBS, the Washington Post, and (at that time independent) Anderson Cooper, divided the Katrina investigation into two parts: State and Local failures and National Failures, Fox news did not significantly report failures on the national level at all. Fox News reporting centered upon the governor's and the mayor's responses to the disaster instead of dividing its coverage like the other organizations. If that's not biased news reporting, then what is?
As for the newspapers committing treason deal: the newspapers in question have not been indicted on such charges, so I find it highly presumptuous to raise the issue in this forum. Secondly, although the Op-Ed section of the Times is definitely liberal, it is the fairest you'll get in its reporting of news. Cite examples, then, of how the Times's news reporting is biased (as opposed to its Op-Ed board).
5 - J0kerr1: By the way..here is your list of liberial talk show hosts - Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Kevin McDonald, Kim Miller, Marcus O'Crotty, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Howard Stern, Lynn Samuels, Peter B. Collins.
Want more. There is an army of them. You don't consider Fox balanced becaue you are a far left wack job who only repeats what you have been told to say. I bet none of you have even watched more than one or any of Bills shows. You just repeat what the superiors tell you. They controll you and you are the drones.
The aforementioned people are, as you have said, talk show hosts. Jon Stewart hosts a comedy show. Fox news, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC are all aiming to be reputable news sources, and I, at least, expect them to act like reputable news sources. Citing talk show/comedy show hosts is a non sequitr, and it has nothing to do with Fox news's bias.
Secondly, what's all this talk about my "superiors"? What superiors? And yes, I have watched the O'Reilly factor, and I've found it particularly interesting how he acutally takes offense to the words "Happy Holidays".
6 - Lastly, stop holding the U.N. to the standard of a world government.
Originally posted by Dakaas Reviewing this forum has been a joy. I can take comfort in these uncertain times that somethings in the universe will always remain constant. Liberals will always be irrational, loud mouthed, out of touch retards. Good to know, I can sleep more comfortably at night knowing I'm not one of them.
Uh, oh. You told them liberals now. I bet you they are so mad at you for saying that to them.
I can't wait until both of you two parties go away and let some stuff start getting done.
I just wish there was a way right now to put both major parties in a room and let them just point fingers at each other for eternity while the rest of us get on with our lives and fix this country.
gnomexxx: Liberal is a political ideology, not a political party. There is a national conservative political party, but again, conservative is being referenced as a political ideology, not a political party.
Originally posted by bhagamu gnomexxx: Liberal is a political ideology, not a political party. There is a national conservative political party, but again, conservative is being referenced as a political ideology, not a political party.
Yeah, I understand that. But I'm putting money down that Daakas was referring to Democrats. Usually comments like that are spawned from the typical back and forth between Democrats and Republicans.
And what I was saying was, I don't care for either one of the two major parties right now.
The Democrats are too liberal economically. And the Republicans are too conservative socially. They need to go away and leave us alone so we can get back on our feet.
That's why I'm a Libertarian. --- Social liberal, Economic conservative
Oh, and btw. I understand liberal is not a bad word too. I like being a liberal on some issues. I'm very open minded when it comes to leaving others alone to do their thing.
Originally posted by baff 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.
Not so, they are relative new comers to WMD. We invented all the good stuff.
P.S. Fox news is clutching at straws. We really did bomb all those weddings. Let our dogs shag people, drive tanks through peoples gardens, massacre tens of thousands, completely destroy an entire countries system of law and order and shoot up a load of children on a false perspective. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.
Also when a country has over 2000 nuclear bombs you shouldn't try and stop them. That would be a mistake.
I'm wondering if you ever ask yourself, Why do terrorists hate us?, Why would someone do something like 9/11? Beause you just answered both questions.
Originally posted by gnomexxx Originally posted by Dakaas Reviewing this forum has been a joy. I can take comfort in these uncertain times that somethings in the universe will always remain constant. Liberals will always be irrational, loud mouthed, out of touch retards. Good to know, I can sleep more comfortably at night knowing I'm not one of them.
Uh, oh. You told them liberals now. I bet you they are so mad at you for saying that to them.
I can't wait until both of you two parties go away and let some stuff start getting done.
I just wish there was a way right now to put both major parties in a room and let them just point fingers at each other for eternity while the rest of us get on with our lives and fix this country.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. While I am registered Democrat, I'm really a "Holy **** these are the only two choices!?" as Jon Stewart of the Daily Show put it.
One thing I will say however, is that Bush is quite incompetent, no matter how much you agree with his policies. His grasp of his native tongue of English is questionable at best, and laughable most of the time, as he invents words regularly ("They misunderestimated me"). In press conferences, he regularly avoids any questions he doesn't want to answer by claiming not to be able to hear, or making fun of the person asking with bad jokes, like he did recently, asking a legally blind correspondant if he was "Going to ask that question with shades on". The thing is, he's an embarassment to our nation. Other countries sit back and laugh. I would be right there with them if I wasn't stuck with as a leader. Republicans, this statement is not Anti-republican, I may have voted your way, if it wasn't for the fact that you put up a very incompetent man up for office. I can't wait for '08, when we can put this embarassment behind us and start moving forward again.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment; We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
Well then, I will get specific bhagamu. That seems to be the consensus, and I will do so. Liberals, progressives, Democrats in my country are severely out of touch with both the political, military, and social strategy behind the administration's foreign policy. I don't know how many times the Bush administration has to go over this before it finally sinks in. But this is rough overview of both the political situation and the strategy behind it. The Middle East region is at a turning point in it's history. It is in a state of both social and economic flux, and is inherently unstable as a result. The region is struggling from social, economic, and RELIGIOUS anxiety. This is the cause for some of it's population embrace of fundamentalism. The world is globilizing, cultures and systems are no longer able to maintain identity, new ideas, new systems are encroaching upon the old. Religion specifically is taking a hit. People embrace religion when their perception of the world is changing too rapidly to adapt. Western religion specifically has this problem as it embraces a literal translation of it's scripture. The bible does not allow for the integration of other cultural systems, hell! there are a dozen terms for "them", infidel, goi, etc.. Take a look specifically at the recent history of Iran. The Shaw of Iran was very pro-western, very progressive in his policies. It was one of the most western, progressive societies in the entire middle east. Look what happened! Too much too soon, an abandonment of old cultural ways, that coupled with political brutality, economic decay and you get a fundamentalist take over and the Ayatollah. The middle east is being left behind by the rest of the world. The leaders of these countries are plundering bastards and everyone nows it. They simultaneously squander the wealth of their own people, and point their fingers at the USA as their oppressors. In order for them to stay in power they have to appease the fundamentlist sentiment is their country as well. The leaders of Syriah, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lybia play the game of harboring these factions in their borders while spewing anti-american rhetoric on a daily basis. What is the danger here? The danger here is that factions are unaccountable, they are not traceble, they have safe harbor, and the inabilty to be made to surrender. You can make a country abide by a treaty, you can not do the same to terrorist cell. Democratic policy would be what exactly? Diplomatic negotiation? With whom? How do you hold a cell accountable when no one holds soveirnty over them? Economic sanctions for terrorist harboring nations? That just feeds into the perception of western oppression. Ignore it and hope it goes away? Pull out of theaters of operation? Clinton did that in Somalia, did nothing about the Cole bombing, failed to act after Ramsey Usef, failed to get Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up to us, and further failed after the Niger bombings. What is the result of 8 years of Liberal policy? Of inaction and finger wagging? 9/11 thats what. Bush has been cleaning up after two terms of Bill Clinton's lack of fortitude. Under the Bush administraion Libya has opened talks after 20 years, Afghanistan has been freed from a fundamentalist regime, a peace treaty in Israel has been garnered, Palestine has become a country, Saudi Arabia has held a democratic election where women can vote, and most importantly the Evil Bush has liberated 26,074,906 people and planted a democracy in the middle of the middle east! Those are just some of the big ones. This war, this policy is about changing the region itself, about empowering these people. Take a look at the world. How may democratic countries are unstable? The fact is, Democracy is the most stable system we have. This war is not some ridiculous hollywood caricature, some vast right-wing conspiracy to control oil. Yet if I listened to the people I have work with, the Liberal Democrat set, I would have to believe that Republicans sit around all laughing, counting money, and eating babies all day long, that they are inherantly evil. Liberal democrats feign compassion but would be perfectly content not get involved with in the world, to let genocide and oppression to go on without end, to sit back and take attack after attack from terrorist and somehow blame it on Republicans. Like I said, out of touch.
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.
I'ld trust America with WMD's before i'ld trust a country know for terrorism. The truth is none of us can know for 100% sure unless you happen to have seen the wmd's with your own eyes. The news people do have agendas and if you think they will not skew the truth, or omit certain facts while really pushing others just to create ratings your a fool.
Hitler's ideals of a unified German people goes back to nearly 1800, and more or less climaxed with the seven weeks war and the following war with france, all before 1900. Hitler's stance was little more than an expansion upon this heavily founded belief of having all German people under a single German flag.
As for WMD's, Iran is quite a stable, and democratic country. It has one of the largest militaries in a world. The religious council (forgot its actual name) that can basically trump anything the government tries to do is kind of scary. So in all actuality, the US is playing politics, and little more. The US is also responsible for the current regime in Iran as well.
Originally posted by Dakaas Reviewing this forum has been a joy. I can take comfort in these uncertain times that somethings in the universe will always remain constant. Liberals will always be irrational, loud mouthed, out of touch retards. Good to know, I can sleep more comfortably at night knowing I'm not one of them.
all you did was insult people. you didnt give a reason or any examples for that matter. how does that help?
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Originally posted by wearehack Originally posted by baff 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.
Not so, they are relative new comers to WMD. We invented all the good stuff.
P.S. Fox news is clutching at straws. We really did bomb all those weddings. Let our dogs shag people, drive tanks through peoples gardens, massacre tens of thousands, completely destroy an entire countries system of law and order and shoot up a load of children on a false perspective. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.
Also when a country has over 2000 nuclear bombs you shouldn't try and stop them. That would be a mistake.
I'm wondering if you ever ask yourself, Why do terrorists hate us?, Why would someone do something like 9/11? Beause you just answered both questions.
way to state the facts.
the things we do in war, are probably far better than the things we do outside war.
ie sweatshops, WTO, sanctions.
we killed thousands of iraqi children, simply by denying them basic medical supplies.
the united states doesnt care who it kills in the interest of the rich. we're no better than hitler or saddam, because we're willing to sacrifice anyone for our goals.
hitler wanted to control europe, help the german people, have a unified flag for a master race.
rich people today have transcended nationalities with corporations. the WTO is really all that matters, local governments only exist to serve them, and pacify us with the idea that we 'the people' are in control of the world.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Comments
Under reported? Meaning... it didn't happen, so it couldn't be reported? Cause, if Osmama even sneezes it gets reported. WMDs in Iraq not getting reported... now we're getting silly.
Ah yes ofcourse, an entire corporation just putting out completely false information as a favor for a buddy...
How obvious, your insight is astounding.
Not buddy. Family. Your lack of facts and assertions there-of are astounding.
SobaKai.com
There are two types of people in this world - people that suck... and me.
Treason is a relative thing;
democrats and republicans all but changed sides 45 years ago so bashing on democrats for something done in the 1860s is irrelevant to contemporary politics;
there are no wmd's in iraq, chuck norris lives in texas;
look up the rally-round-the-flag effect, and try comparing it to Bush's political agenda and the republican party's support of that agenda;
war tends to inflate national expenditure, but it never comes down.
This was a joke right? A terrible one maybe?
Or did I miss something? The nuclear bomb was actually discovered earlier than history says it was? And by different guys than what history says? Did I sleep in some history lesson?
the united states started the eugenics movement in the 1920's.
we banned the marriage and breeding rights of mentally handicapped people.
these ideas of race superiority spread to germany where hitler saw value in them to unite the german population against the jews.
so i suppose we're responsible for the holocaust.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
the united states in cooperation with the WTO puts people in far worse conditions than slaves ever were.
at least slave owners had a responsibliity to their slaves because of the monetary value inherent therein.
now corporations can pay people starvation wages and screw them completely over, because there is no responsibility.
america's treatment of minorities in other countries via corporate affairs has much much worsened since the slave trade.
slavery would be a blessing, compared to the sweatshops we have now.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
Few things in this thread.
1 - If you're going to say something, make an argument instead of an unfounded generalization or an ad hominem.
2 -
J0kerr1: Saddam himself thought he had WMD. He didn't let the inspectors do their job because of this. This led us, and many other countries, to beleive he had weapons. We do know he broke UN sanctions (good job of the UN holding them to those). We do know he was looking to stockpile materials.
The book Cobra II by Michael Gordon has a section detailing how Mr. Hussein's generals believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons and fully expected Saddam to authorize their use during the invasion period. Saddam, however, revealed to them that he had no weapons after all and that he was only employing a ruse against Iraq's next door neighbor, Iran. His generals were, needless to say, dismayed that they would not be able to pull out those secret weapons. Bottom line: Saddam knew that Iraq didn't have active WMDs.
3 -
J0kerr1: Lying, I want you to prove the Bush intentiolaly lied to the public. I know you can't, because he didn't. Now I can point to another time someone lied, but we won't go there. "I will tell you once more time, I did not point to a president who lied to the nation and obstructed justice."
Your first sentence, I'm guessing, left out "Administration" after Bush. On this premise:
Lie: On March 30, 2003, 11 days after the war in Iraq began, in an interview, Donald Rumsfeld stated: "We know where they are", referencing the WMDs in question. Afterward, a CIA report was released declaring that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
So you know they lied. How can I prove that they intentionally did it? I'm not sure, Karl Rove has been a pretty good coach for Mr. Bush, and motives are well hidden among the administration. But I ask you to consider this:
From: The New York Times, March 27, 2006 ==News==
During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003 ... "The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."
...
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
From: CNN.com, March 18, 2003 ==Bush issues Ultimatum to Saddam==
Saying the "danger was clear" that the Iraqi regime would provide terrorists with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, President Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 48 hours for him and his sons to leave Iraq before military action begins "at a time of our choosing."
What you should understand from these two articles is this: Bush and Blair planned to invade Iraq "penciling in" a date for war regardless of what Saddam did. The New York Times article referenced a memo. Please see the second paragraph of the article - both the president and the prime minister acknowledge that no unconventional weapons had been found in Iraq, and yet they sought to invade anyway. The argument that the administration was not in the slight bit deceitful cannot be soundly made.
As for the comment about Bill Clinton: Clinton lied about a blowjob, Rumsfeld lied and brought America into a war. Consider the difference.
4 - In reference to a comment made about Fox news exhibiting a right-wing agenda.
J0kerr1: This is the mind-numbing crap coming out of the liberial cult. Fox news seems right because it is the only news that tries to be in the center. Bill, if you actually listened to him and not repeat what your superiors say, picks on anyone he seems as doing wrong (whcih has been right and left people).
As for more biased news...New York Times might be looking at legal issues that accuse them of treason.
You're merely the second conservative out of many I've met in my entire life who has actually tried to say that Fox news is not a right-wing biased news source. I disagree with you, and I'm sure even the producer of Fox News, off the record, would disagree with you as well. What I would have you consider is this: while ABC, CNN, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times, CBS, the Washington Post, and (at that time independent) Anderson Cooper, divided the Katrina investigation into two parts: State and Local failures and National Failures, Fox news did not significantly report failures on the national level at all. Fox News reporting centered upon the governor's and the mayor's responses to the disaster instead of dividing its coverage like the other organizations. If that's not biased news reporting, then what is?
As for the newspapers committing treason deal: the newspapers in question have not been indicted on such charges, so I find it highly presumptuous to raise the issue in this forum. Secondly, although the Op-Ed section of the Times is definitely liberal, it is the fairest you'll get in its reporting of news. Cite examples, then, of how the Times's news reporting is biased (as opposed to its Op-Ed board).
5 - J0kerr1: By the way..here is your list of liberial talk show hosts - Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Kevin McDonald, Kim Miller, Marcus O'Crotty, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Howard Stern, Lynn Samuels, Peter B. Collins.
Want more. There is an army of them. You don't consider Fox balanced becaue you are a far left wack job who only repeats what you have been told to say. I bet none of you have even watched more than one or any of Bills shows. You just repeat what the superiors tell you. They controll you and you are the drones.
The aforementioned people are, as you have said, talk show hosts. Jon Stewart hosts a comedy show. Fox news, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC are all aiming to be reputable news sources, and I, at least, expect them to act like reputable news sources. Citing talk show/comedy show hosts is a non sequitr, and it has nothing to do with Fox news's bias.
Secondly, what's all this talk about my "superiors"? What superiors? And yes, I have watched the O'Reilly factor, and I've found it particularly interesting how he acutally takes offense to the words "Happy Holidays".
6 - Lastly, stop holding the U.N. to the standard of a world government.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
I can't wait until both of you two parties go away and let some stuff start getting done.
I just wish there was a way right now to put both major parties in a room and let them just point fingers at each other for eternity while the rest of us get on with our lives and fix this country.
===============================
gnomexxx: Liberal is a political ideology, not a political party. There is a national conservative political party, but again, conservative is being referenced as a political ideology, not a political party.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
And what I was saying was, I don't care for either one of the two major parties right now.
The Democrats are too liberal economically. And the Republicans are too conservative socially. They need to go away and leave us alone so we can get back on our feet.
That's why I'm a Libertarian. --- Social liberal, Economic conservative
Oh, and btw. I understand liberal is not a bad word too. I like being a liberal on some issues. I'm very open minded when it comes to leaving others alone to do their thing.
===============================
Not so, they are relative new comers to WMD. We invented all the good stuff.
P.S. Fox news is clutching at straws. We really did bomb all those weddings. Let our dogs shag people, drive tanks through peoples gardens, massacre tens of thousands, completely destroy an entire countries system of law and order and shoot up a load of children on a false perspective. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.
Also when a country has over 2000 nuclear bombs you shouldn't try and stop them. That would be a mistake.
I'm wondering if you ever ask yourself, Why do terrorists hate us?, Why would someone do something like 9/11? Beause you just answered both questions.
I can't wait until both of you two parties go away and let some stuff start getting done.
I just wish there was a way right now to put both major parties in a room and let them just point fingers at each other for eternity while the rest of us get on with our lives and fix this country.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. While I am registered Democrat, I'm really a "Holy **** these are the only two choices!?" as Jon Stewart of the Daily Show put it.
One thing I will say however, is that Bush is quite incompetent, no matter how much you agree with his policies. His grasp of his native tongue of English is questionable at best, and laughable most of the time, as he invents words regularly ("They misunderestimated me"). In press conferences, he regularly avoids any questions he doesn't want to answer by claiming not to be able to hear, or making fun of the person asking with bad jokes, like he did recently, asking a legally blind correspondant if he was "Going to ask that question with shades on". The thing is, he's an embarassment to our nation. Other countries sit back and laugh. I would be right there with them if I wasn't stuck with as a leader. Republicans, this statement is not Anti-republican, I may have voted your way, if it wasn't for the fact that you put up a very incompetent man up for office. I can't wait for '08, when we can put this embarassment behind us and start moving forward again.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
Hitler's ideals of a unified German people goes back to nearly 1800, and more or less climaxed with the seven weeks war and the following war with france, all before 1900. Hitler's stance was little more than an expansion upon this heavily founded belief of having all German people under a single German flag.
As for WMD's, Iran is quite a stable, and democratic country. It has one of the largest militaries in a world. The religious council (forgot its actual name) that can basically trump anything the government tries to do is kind of scary. So in all actuality, the US is playing politics, and little more. The US is also responsible for the current regime in Iran as well.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
why nobody in the middle east, 'cept us (israel) can have nukes----
maybe the reason we dont want iran to have nukes... is becuase then we cant invade them if they refuse us oil?
nobody has ever instigated open war against someone with nukes. why?
i think thats pretty obvious. remember the cold war?
remember when we starte alqueda, and funded saddam, and the prince of iran, and osama, and the contras?
those were all under the tables battles with 'communism'
why?
cause you cant attack a country who has nukes directly.
if iran gets nukes, the entire middle east can form a coalition to quit selling oil to america.
then, we'll want to instantly invade...
but they'll have nukes.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Not so, they are relative new comers to WMD. We invented all the good stuff.
P.S. Fox news is clutching at straws. We really did bomb all those weddings. Let our dogs shag people, drive tanks through peoples gardens, massacre tens of thousands, completely destroy an entire countries system of law and order and shoot up a load of children on a false perspective. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.
Also when a country has over 2000 nuclear bombs you shouldn't try and stop them. That would be a mistake.
I'm wondering if you ever ask yourself, Why do terrorists hate us?, Why would someone do something like 9/11? Beause you just answered both questions.
way to state the facts.
the things we do in war, are probably far better than the things we do outside war.
ie sweatshops, WTO, sanctions.
we killed thousands of iraqi children, simply by denying them basic medical supplies.
the united states doesnt care who it kills in the interest of the rich. we're no better than hitler or saddam, because we're willing to sacrifice anyone for our goals.
hitler wanted to control europe, help the german people, have a unified flag for a master race.
rich people today have transcended nationalities with corporations. the WTO is really all that matters, local governments only exist to serve them, and pacify us with the idea that we 'the people' are in control of the world.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--