2004 Elections

[sosuemetoo]

2004 Elections

Hello Frings!

I will try my best to debate you on these issues, I can't guarantee it will be with foreign sources though.

Originally posted by Fringan+Sep 9 2004, 11:21 AM--><div class='quotemain'>Oh please, fool the other one. Saddam never started any war agains the USA.[/b]

You're right, he didn't. However, if you remember after 9/11, Bush stood before our nation and the world and said "you are either with us or against us." Basically, if you harbor or finance terrorists, you are against us. WMD and Saddams's tyranny to his own people aside, Saddam was harboring and financing terrorists. I offer the following

Link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...sp?ZoomFont=YES

Excerpt:
"OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in
some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis."

Again, get your facts straight. Afghanistan has never attacked you. Afhanistan has never even threatened to attack you.

You're right, Afghanistan did not attack us. However, the ruling government (Taliban) refused to give up Osama even AFTER Osama claimed responsibility for 9/11. What other proof did the Taliban need from us?

Living in europe I can tell you, my friend, USA is not as popular as after the Clinton administration. Everyone seems to know this, except americans. Can you say "propaganda"?

Please understand that I am not bashing any countries when I say this. This is a war on terrorism to keep Americans as well as our allies safe from terrorist that wish us dead. This is not a popularity contest. If America is unpopular, but I and my loved ones are safe, then that is what matters to me. Other countries have the right to fight terrorism in their country in their own way.

I understand propoganda very much. It's interesting, I was chatting online with someone from France who had no idea about this:

"Anti-war nations 'took bribes' before war began"
Link:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...sp?story=485407

Excerpt:

"28 January 2004


Claims that dozens of politicians, including some from prominent anti-war countries such as France, had taken bribes to support Saddam Hussein are to be investigated by the Iraqi authorities. The US-backed Iraqi Governing Council decided to check after an independent Baghdad newspaper, al-Mada, published a list which it said was based on oil ministry documents.

The 46 individuals, companies and organisations inside and outside Iraq were given millions of barrels of oil, the documents show. Thousands of papers were looted from the State Oil Marketing Organisation after Baghdad fell to US forces on 9 April."

The US was not getting kickbacks from Saddam, however we are accused of going into there for Oil. This is the reason we did not have UN backing even after Saddam had broken 13 resolutions.

<!--QuoteBegin-Unintentional

@Sep 9 2004, 01:24 PM
Foreign extremist muslims SHOULD be mistrusted.?

Yeah well.. USA, land of the free! (if you are caucasian, christian and have alot of money)[/quote]

This seems like an untrue statement to me. America is a melting pot of people from different countries, different faiths and different income levels. We do not discriminate against muslim's here. However, we have a right to mistrust those foreign extremists that threaten to kill us in our own land.

"Mom"

CaryP - These links are dittohead-free

 

[Anoah]

2004 Elections

Oh my gosh, I cannot believe that there are people out there who still think that the war on terror and the patriot act are going to protect us from anything. Sure we need too fight and destroy terrorism, but not like the way we are going about it. Aack, Im sitting this debate out because my head will explode. Keep up the interesting posts anyway people

 

[CaryP]

2004 Elections

You're right, he didn't. However, if you remember after 9/11, Bush stood before our nation and the world and said \"you are either with us or against us.\" Basically, if you harbor or finance terrorists, you are against us. WMD and Saddams's tyranny to his own people aside, Saddam was harboring and financing terrorists. I offer the following

Spoken like a true fascist. World politics is not the wild west or the feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. What if every nation said the same thing? WW III here we come. Threatening other world governments is not the way to garner support for your agenda. How many other countries were doing the same thing? At least dozens. Why haven't we attacked them? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Yemen, No. Korea, a multitude of African nations - and this one is likely to stir up some crap - Israel, all harbor and support terrorists. Not officially of course, but terrorists are known to operate out of all those countries. Why haven't we attacked and invaded those countries? Because Bush has been wanting a war and invasion of Iraq since before he was president. Hell, we used to support Hussein back when he was fighting Iran. We supported OBL when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. We still support Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and Israel. What are we supposed to do attack ourselves? Makes no sense. Bush wanted a war with Iraq and lied his way into it.

You're right, Afghanistan did not attack us. However, the ruling government (Taliban) refused to give up Osama even AFTER Osama claimed responsibility for 9/11. What other proof did the Taliban need from us?

So if some country like France says give us Dick Cheney because of the bribery scandal there that's still being investigated, we should just give him up? That'd be my response, but it's never going to happen. What about the lawsuits and investigations in several south American countries against Henry Kissenger for his involvement in death squads and torture of dissenters? No, he didn't personally participate, but he authorized a lot of it. Negroponte, our current "Ambassador" to Iraq, was the front man through the State Dept. (CIA) in Latin America back in the 70's when the atrocities took place. Kissenger authorized all kinds of "bad acts" and Negroponte carried them out while there. Should we just give him up to them? Ain't gonna happen either. OBL has never, I repeat NEVER claimed responsibility for 9/11. The video tape that was paraded around of him claiming so was a fake. The guy in the video was close, but on close (not even that close) inspection, it's obvious it wasn't OBL in the tape. Independent Arabic translators who listened to the audio, couldn't confirm what was said because the sound quality was so bad. Very much dittohead propaganda about OBL's claim of accountability on 9/11 Sue.

The US was not getting kickbacks from Saddam, however we are accused of going into there for Oil. This is the reason we did not have UN backing even after Saddam had broken 13 resolutions.

Dick Cheney is probably going to be indicted in France for his involvement in bribes over Iraq when he was CEO of Haliburton. He wasn't taking them, but he sure was giving them out. So what if a bunch of French executives and politicians were taking bribes from Iraq. You think bribes are a rare occurence around the world? They happen on a daily basis. And yeah, Saddam had the resolutions that were broken. But it should tell you something that our "Coalition of the Bought and Paid For" was the same thing. We paid off those countries willing to take our money to be included in the "coalition", but since it was the US govt. no problem, right? Same damned thing. Iraq was bribing those who would help. The US did the same damned thing. Who's more or less guilty? It's just politics - been that way for a long time.

This seems like an untrue statement to me. America is a melting pot of people from different countries, different faiths and different income levels. We do not discriminate against muslim's here. However, we have a right to mistrust those foreign extremists that threaten to kill us in our own land.

Yes, you're right Sue, but the wealthy is mostly populated with white men, who are Christian (at least in pretense). Have you talked to many Muslims who immigrated here and still have an accent? They're not feeling so welcome here these days. And yes, terrorists threatening to strike the US at home or abroad should not be trusted. Kinda obvious.

Sue, I really like you and respect you, but you been drinking the Republican Kool Aid way too long. Don't accept the propaganda at face value. The govt. and those who aspire to rise to the top echelons are well practiced in the arts of lying, twisting the truth, propaganda, and misdirection for their own self-interests. And those interests ain't yours. Try googling some of what I've been telling you instead of listening to a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh. The boy's a show biz dope head. He ain't got your best interest at heart either.

Cary

 

[Unintentional]

2004 Elections

Sadam choose the war when he refused to comply with the cease fire from desert storm 1. He, Sadam, agreed to the cease fire. If you deny this, then explain the 17 resolutions which basically have the last 16 saying you better comply with the cease fire or else. Before you then say, we didn't give weapon's inspectors enough time or we didn't let them finish their job or we didn't (fill in the blank). The weapon inspectors job was to confirm Sadam compliance with his getting rid of his WMDs. Sadam was to get rid of them, and then prove it. What he did do was lie and refuse to prove anything. The weapons inspectors become "it" in a game of hide and seek with Sadam shutting doors, kicking them out and basically not cooperating in the slightest. This was not their job or duty. Sadam was to dismantle the WMD, document it, and then go to the inspectors and say look, "This is where they were, this is what we did to them, this is what is left of them, here is the documentation. It didn't happen. UN resolution 1441 which was unanimously approved by the security counsel, authorized the use of force if he did not begin to comply with agreements that he MADE OVER TEN YEARS AGO!

On 9-11 we were attacked by muslim extremist who based their operations out of Afganistan with the leave of the Taliban.

The US declared war on terrorism.

The Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden. You know the rest of the story.

AFter 9-11, Sadam still refused to comply. He supports terrorism. The US is at war with terrorism and specifically countries that harbor them. The US had two crystal clear reasons and authorities to remove Sadam. You can be against this action, but it can't be denied that the US had good reason and the authority to remove Sadam from power.

As far as world popularity, the only non muslims countries with USA approval below 50% is German and France, no surprise since those countries both ran elections saying how much American sucks (Schoeder and Chirok). Prewar approval ratings are basically the same for muslim countries and their was no non-muslim country with approval ratings below 50%. However I am willing to concede that USA popularity is lower now than before the war, it is hardly alienating the rest of the world. Unless you consider German and France, the "rest of the world". I know Kerry doesn't think we have a "real" coalition because we don't have those two countries. (Sorry, Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pilau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan; haven't you heard? your guys aren't real according to Kerry. We've been alienating you. You can go home now. Because Germany and France didn't join us, we are all a joke. You don't count.

PS Maybe not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorists have been Muslim.

PPS Bush never said Iraq had WMDs. Please show one speech, one quote, one documented instance of where he said that. I know there are some web site with false quotes of him saying that, but when the original source is sought out, you will find he did not say that. It was always: he could have WMDs and he is non-compliant.

PPPS Top Al Queda members that have been captured have already admitted that we disrupted their plans for further attacks in the USA. They did not expect a response such as they got. (Gee, I wonder why....hmmm...Cole...US Embassies...First WTC bombing....etc...etc...) Take it for gospel truth: If we did nothing after 9-11 they would definitely have been more attacks in the USA coordinated by Al Queda in Afganistan with total approval of the Taliban. They have said so themselves.

 

[CaryP]

2004 Elections

Unintentional,

I don't know whether to laugh or just sigh. I'd make some comments, but I think they'd be wasted on you. You keep believing whatever.

Cary

 

[Unintentional]

2004 Elections

It's okay either way. I try to keep an open mind and look at both sides. I will have to find my "Everything you know is Wrong" books and brush up on the tri-lateral thing. It has been a while and I am curious even though the books are getting dated if I can get a different read on them now that some time has passed.

 

[StarLord]

2004 Elections

~~*Runs out into the middle of the Fracas and Plants a Placard as points of contention zing back and forth, adroitly dodging counterpoints with a flair never before seen by the unaided naked eye, wondering if they need to rename the valley to 'Hatfield vs Mc Coys BBQ, Bring Yourn Own Powder & Shot' as he zips back to the starting point*~~

Placard reads: Wait one cotton picken second here, what about the 25 to 35 TONS of enriched Yellow Cake Uranium that was a found in a Ware House over there, seeins how they are the only one there that could refine that there stuff which would Yeild approx 17 to 18 War Heads, seems to me that is WMD just in a form a step ahead.

Takes a sip of JD as he reads the placard with a great set of Binocs, nodding "Ayep, that'll work"

On another note, folks here abouts are a side steppin a mighty powerful point that I think need to be adressed in my humble opinion. Terrorists are a fact, we can't wish them away, wish we could, ain't gonna happen in this universe. So.

How do you get rid of them? Are you going to let them dictate their whims to the world? How do you know that once their demands are met ( a real mistake in my book) they are going to be sastisified with that?? Once a Bully, Always a Bully.....
How would you fix the problem?

 

[Fringan]

2004 Elections

I'm supposed to be at uni in 7 hours doing a test in my physics course so I'll just aswer the most obvious things right now.

Originally posted by Unintentional+Sep 9 2004, 09:58 PM--><div class='quotemain'>On 9-11 we were attacked by muslim extremist who based their operations out of Afganistan with the leave of the Taliban.

The US declared war on terrorism.

The Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden.? You know the rest of the story.
[/b]

Again, The Afganeese government said they would hand OBL over as soon as bush admin. haded over some real proof that it really WAS OBLL. Bush failed to do so.

Originally posted by Unintentional@Sep 9 2004, 09:58 PM
AFter 9-11, Sadam still refused to comply.? He supports terrorism.? The US is at war with terrorism and specifically countries that harbor them.? The US had two crystal clear reasons and authorities to remove Sadam.? You can be against this action, but it can't be denied that the US had good reason and the authority to remove Sadam from power.

The only thing that is crystal creal is that it was a criminal act to attack Iraq. There was no approval from the UN, no proof for anything.
USA does not have any athourity what so ever to attack other states when they feel like it, not even if they have a good reason. An attack must first be apporved by the UN or it's an illegal act of war.

Originally posted by Unintentional@Sep 9 2004, 09:58 PM
(Sorry, Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall? Islands, Micronesia,? Mongolia,? Netherlands, Nicaragua,? Pilau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan;? haven't you heard?? your guys aren't real according to Kerry.? We've been alienating you.? You can go home now.? Because Germany and France didn't join us, we are all a joke.? You don't count.

All those countries except perhaps japan, netherlands, denmark and italy and poor or small countries with no international political influence, nor well developed armies. Eigther that or their governments are puppets on the ends of the strings pulled from USA: UK, afghanistan.. .. Some are 100% dependent on USA not forcing boykots on them (like you did to Iraq for 10 years and Cuba for god knows how long).

Originally posted by Unintentional@Sep 9 2004, 09:58 PM
PS Maybe not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorists have been Muslim.

Yeah sure.. We all know of the muslim Irish IRA, the muslim baskian terrorists in spain, the muslim UNA bomber and the muslim japaneese group who dropped nerv gas in tokyos subway system. Come on.. wake up.

<!--QuoteBegin-Unintentional@Sep 9 2004, 09:58 PM
PPS Bush never said Iraq had WMDs.? Please show one speech, one quote, one documented instance of where he said that.
[/quote]

Ok, look at this for instance. Pretty hard denying its Bush:
BUSH.WMV
(thanks to Heggy for hosting)

 

[TimeWizardCosmo]

2004 Elections

Right-click and do "Save Target As" on the link.... It's about megs.

 

[Unintentional]

2004 Elections

http://loudoun.nvcc.edu/home/jhuang/econht...dp_showcase.htm

This shows that although the deficit is increasing and stopped increasing slightly during the end of Clinton's term, as a percentage of GDP it is not increasing. I know that is a lame comeback, but it's analogy is let's say you have every month you spend 5% more than what you earn (not a good idea in practice). The first month you earn 10,000 dollars and go in debt 500 dollars. The next month you earn 20,000 and go into debt 1000 dollars. Is that exploding deficit? As a percentage it has stayed the same. Still all in all deficit spending is a bad idea but not really exploding. Stupid? Yes. Exploding? No. Would Kerry do better? If he raised taxes, yes, if not, no.

We are already starting to outgrow the current deficit. First they said the deficit for this year would be 600 billion. It is really only 420 billion. Federal collections went up 180 billion more than expected. If taxes were cut, how is that possible? The answer is the tax cut did release needed capital to promote new growth and thus a larger number of income to tax. The new lower rate times the new gdp is higher than the old rate times the old gdp. Of corse the old rate times the new gdp would be even higher, but would the gdp have increased as much without the tax cut? Of course these figures all given by the government and as it was posted on another thread, they could all be made up by the government.

Geeze, I am going to put my head in a bag. I sound like a Bush adminstration apologist.