-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Sign up with GoogleLuara and Barney?
- Thread starter vespax
- Start date
alan,
You say that because a reporter keeps a source private, even from his own paper in such a high profile case, than that discredits his entire career? Com'n, who hasn't apologized for something before?
I wouldn't say he is any less credible than many other investigative journalists out there. but he does have some good contacts around Washington. Better than you and I have, so his comments are worth noting.
60 Minutes has very decent coverage of current affairs. I have watched it for more than 10 years and feel confident in many of their programs. Becuase Danny made a mistake, doesn't mean that news agency is completely wrong on everything they report on from that time forward.
Alan.... Please look at things with a little more open-mindedness. For an intersting read on Iraq, trythis. It gives a good perspective of how bad things are.
You say that because a reporter keeps a source private, even from his own paper in such a high profile case, than that discredits his entire career? Com'n, who hasn't apologized for something before?
I wouldn't say he is any less credible than many other investigative journalists out there. but he does have some good contacts around Washington. Better than you and I have, so his comments are worth noting.
60 Minutes has very decent coverage of current affairs. I have watched it for more than 10 years and feel confident in many of their programs. Becuase Danny made a mistake, doesn't mean that news agency is completely wrong on everything they report on from that time forward.
Alan.... Please look at things with a little more open-mindedness. For an intersting read on Iraq, trythis. It gives a good perspective of how bad things are.
There is no doubt in my mind that things are bad in Iraq. That is crystal clear but what gets to me is that there are people who are using Iraq for blatant political gain. In there quest for support/votes they consciously undermine the effort in Iraq, causing soldiers to lose their lives .
The Bush administration has made major errors after the fall of Saddam. But to blame soley the U.S government for the current problems is wrong. The Iraqis are frankly more responsible for the troubles. If they stoped attacking the coalition soldiers and each other the U.S will pull out. They are the ones instigating trouble.
Secondly the left is also just as responsible as the U.S government in my opinion. Claiming Bush is in it for the oil undermines the soldiers moral and that of their families while causing ordinary Iraqi's to belive there country's resources are being annexed. This just fuels more violence. If European and Arab countries had gone in with the U.S the terrorists couldn't use the "crusader issue" to rally support but instead the left gave that cause perceived legitimacy by saying that the Bush administration are a bunch religious fanatics.
Damn I have to go out. I'll complete this tomorrow.
No worries alan.
We could argue this stuff for ever. I was just trying to point out some news. Many people have made good and bad decisions in the situation, but to not hold some accountable to me is a mistake for all.
I also think that the 'left' as you call it is not lowering the moral of troops. I think not having technical and tactical support in the field in a country they are unfamiliar with and not welcomed in is enough to lower anyone's moral. Plenty of people support the troops (I have long-time friends who have gone multiple times to Iraq), but that doesn't mean that criticism should be withheld until it is 'finished.'
My opinion. take as you want.
We could argue this stuff for ever. I was just trying to point out some news. Many people have made good and bad decisions in the situation, but to not hold some accountable to me is a mistake for all.
I also think that the 'left' as you call it is not lowering the moral of troops. I think not having technical and tactical support in the field in a country they are unfamiliar with and not welcomed in is enough to lower anyone's moral. Plenty of people support the troops (I have long-time friends who have gone multiple times to Iraq), but that doesn't mean that criticism should be withheld until it is 'finished.'
My opinion. take as you want.
@alanf85
There is no doubt in my mind that things are bad in Iraq. That is crystal clear but what gets to me is that there are people who are using Iraq for blatant political gain. In there quest for support/votes they consciously undermine the effort in Iraq, causing soldiers to lose their lives.
Who - if not GB - used Iraq for greatest political gain - Oooh ya, the perpetrators of 9/11 and a major repository of WMD - which can strike London at any time. PLEAZE! And GB has been squeezing this reliably ever since (the good work ol' usa is doing in Iraq - while torturing prisoners, keeping civilians hostage and raping and murdering the civilian population.) War is hell and america excels at it. Famous line from Apocalypse Now: hit them with a 50 Cal, then give them a bandaid - and expect them to be grateful to Uncle Sam.
The Bush administration has made major errors after the fall of Saddam. But to blame soley the U.S government for the current problems is wrong. The Iraqis are frankly more responsible for the troubles. If they stoped attacking the coalition soldiers and each other the U.S will pull out. They are the ones instigating trouble.
The bush admin made purposeful errors before the fall of saddam (um, didn't they have something to do with this - like creating reams of false WMD reports?) Um - isn't it a key tenant of patriotism and citizenship to repel invaders? How can an invaded country be instigating trouble - against the invaders? (Shakes head.) Bush doublespeak and flawed logic presented as fact - uh duh, they must stop attacking - the attackers!! - now that's logic if ever.
Secondly the left is also just as responsible as the U.S government in my opinion. Claiming Bush is in it for the oil undermines the soldiers moral and that of their families while causing ordinary Iraqi's to belive there country's resources are being annexed. This just fuels more violence. If European and Arab countries had gone in with the U.S the terrorists couldn't use the "crusader issue" to rally support but instead the left gave that cause perceived legitimacy by saying that the Bush administration are a bunch religious fanatics.
The resources have been annexed - which part of invaded and conquered don't you understand? Which part of illegally and falsely don't you understand? Um, maybe if there was less imperialism around the world - people would have less reason to equate it with the crusades. Are they not a bunch of religious fanatics? Um, we have a mission from beyond the stars... we are the forces of good against evil - let's all go to church and swear Love, Peace, Forgiveness for all peoples... uum no - let's rather go kick their butt in Iiiiraq. Stone cold killers fighting the war against the Islamist Fundamentalists Jihad Fascist Terrorist Killers who want to take over the world. Ya. Right.
Damn I have to go out. I'll complete this tomorrow.
Be careful - an airliner flown by Iraqi fundamentalist jihad fascist killers - could just fall on your head.
Sickening.
Oh, and torture and detainment indefinitely - are GOOD things!! Fuk the geneva conventions, the amercan constitution - and all those other good/bad things - the UN is a joke etc... The blood of hundreds of thousands of people - from South America to the Far East - is on American hands... Um, now I wonder why no one likes us anymore??!
Dumb and dumber.
Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.
George Orwell
Thanks truck-ra for the Orwell quotes!
There is no doubt in my mind that things are bad in Iraq. That is crystal clear but what gets to me is that there are people who are using Iraq for blatant political gain. In there quest for support/votes they consciously undermine the effort in Iraq, causing soldiers to lose their lives.
Who - if not GB - used Iraq for greatest political gain - Oooh ya, the perpetrators of 9/11 and a major repository of WMD - which can strike London at any time. PLEAZE! And GB has been squeezing this reliably ever since (the good work ol' usa is doing in Iraq - while torturing prisoners, keeping civilians hostage and raping and murdering the civilian population.) War is hell and america excels at it. Famous line from Apocalypse Now: hit them with a 50 Cal, then give them a bandaid - and expect them to be grateful to Uncle Sam.
The Bush administration has made major errors after the fall of Saddam. But to blame soley the U.S government for the current problems is wrong. The Iraqis are frankly more responsible for the troubles. If they stoped attacking the coalition soldiers and each other the U.S will pull out. They are the ones instigating trouble.
The bush admin made purposeful errors before the fall of saddam (um, didn't they have something to do with this - like creating reams of false WMD reports?) Um - isn't it a key tenant of patriotism and citizenship to repel invaders? How can an invaded country be instigating trouble - against the invaders? (Shakes head.) Bush doublespeak and flawed logic presented as fact - uh duh, they must stop attacking - the attackers!! - now that's logic if ever.
Secondly the left is also just as responsible as the U.S government in my opinion. Claiming Bush is in it for the oil undermines the soldiers moral and that of their families while causing ordinary Iraqi's to belive there country's resources are being annexed. This just fuels more violence. If European and Arab countries had gone in with the U.S the terrorists couldn't use the "crusader issue" to rally support but instead the left gave that cause perceived legitimacy by saying that the Bush administration are a bunch religious fanatics.
The resources have been annexed - which part of invaded and conquered don't you understand? Which part of illegally and falsely don't you understand? Um, maybe if there was less imperialism around the world - people would have less reason to equate it with the crusades. Are they not a bunch of religious fanatics? Um, we have a mission from beyond the stars... we are the forces of good against evil - let's all go to church and swear Love, Peace, Forgiveness for all peoples... uum no - let's rather go kick their butt in Iiiiraq. Stone cold killers fighting the war against the Islamist Fundamentalists Jihad Fascist Terrorist Killers who want to take over the world. Ya. Right.
Damn I have to go out. I'll complete this tomorrow.
Be careful - an airliner flown by Iraqi fundamentalist jihad fascist killers - could just fall on your head.
Sickening.
Oh, and torture and detainment indefinitely - are GOOD things!! Fuk the geneva conventions, the amercan constitution - and all those other good/bad things - the UN is a joke etc... The blood of hundreds of thousands of people - from South America to the Far East - is on American hands... Um, now I wonder why no one likes us anymore??!
Dumb and dumber.
Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.
George Orwell
Thanks truck-ra for the Orwell quotes!
Last edited:
Whooa luckily I was looking for a past post or I wouldn't have came across this. Anyway I think I will reply. I won't write it in short simple sentences. So if you get lost get someone to explain it to you like they would a five year old.
How could GB be using the Iraq war for political gain. He lost a lot of support in the build up to Iraq. The war has cost him dearly in the opinion polls while the the left have gained with there "easy way out" solution. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to fiqure out that people don't want war but if everyone just did what they wanted where would that leave us. The armed forces are doing good in Iraq. There are plenty of projects to buid up the Infrastructure (water, health and education, security, transportation, communication, and facilities) all the things insurgents are trying to destroy. You seem to paint these brave men and women with a broad brush. A very small minority have commited crimes, a handfull out of houndreds of thousands of troops who are under severe stress facing a ruthless enemy. If they are found guilty they will be punished. Some could even get the death penalty, the same can't be said for liberalism were criminals roam free to terrorise the public. What about heroic acts taken by the soldiers to save the lives of Iraqi's and there brothers in arms. There is plenty of evedence of these acts so why have you, like the media, decided to ignore it. Also where were you when Saddam was killing civillians? why suddenly are you now so outraged. Hypocrite.
HA HA HA you quote Apocalype Now, a holllywood film .No wonder you are deluded. Open a history book you might learn something.
Yeah Bush wanted the war to go down the toilet. Nothing like having a destabilized country to get the oil flowing. Having innocent civillians dying as well as your soldiers really sends your popularity through the roof. Never mind all the money it soaks up, after all Bush loves losing money more than anything. The majority of Iraqs wanted Saddam removed. If you remove an oppressive dictator it is called liberating( it is in the dictionary, look it up).
What resources have been annexed? The resources of the country belong to the Iraqi government. Remember millions of brave Iraqis voted for them. I would hate to see how you manage your money. The war is costing the Americans billions.
I understand those words but they aren't relevant to Iraq. You on the other hand seem to not know. I suggest you take a look at this site http://dictionary.reference.com . More evidence of suspect mental health.
What Imperealism? I don't see any colonies around anywhere. No they are not religious fanatics. Many non religious people support the war in Iraq. I would to think democracy is a lesser evil than Islamic Fundamentalism and ruthless dictators. I see a lot more people moving to demorcratic countries than any othes so I guess that means something must be better. It is all good and well swearing Love, Peace, Forgiveness for all peoples but what's the point if you don't defend. Don't other people deserve a chance at it as well.
I tried to find that joke amusing but couldn't. I hope you are not to disapointed cause I see you put a lot of effort into it. It must of taken an hour of intense thought to come up with that. Was a headache worth it?
I see you are sick, sick in the head that is. Here check out this sight, because whatever you are on isn't helping.
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/
I personally recommend researching Paranoid Shizophrenia. Checking if any of your great grandparents were from the same family may help as well.
Of coures torture is wrong. Giving a robust interrogation isn't. I don't recall POW's in past wars having trials. Finally we agree on something, your right about the Geneva Conventions and the U.N is a joke. Islamic Fundamentalist have killed hundreds of thousands from the U.S across Asia to Australia. What about Communists, Nazis and Liberals. Boo hoo people like Bin Laden, Mugabe, Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Kim Dae-jung and Nasrallah don't like us. Lots of ordinary people still like America. It is just that we don't control the media. You are a perfect example of the saying "Empty cans rattle the most".
Hey no hard feelings. You can't help it. It is not like you chose be be a retarded.
How could GB be using the Iraq war for political gain. He lost a lot of support in the build up to Iraq. The war has cost him dearly in the opinion polls while the the left have gained with there "easy way out" solution. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to fiqure out that people don't want war but if everyone just did what they wanted where would that leave us. The armed forces are doing good in Iraq. There are plenty of projects to buid up the Infrastructure (water, health and education, security, transportation, communication, and facilities) all the things insurgents are trying to destroy. You seem to paint these brave men and women with a broad brush. A very small minority have commited crimes, a handfull out of houndreds of thousands of troops who are under severe stress facing a ruthless enemy. If they are found guilty they will be punished. Some could even get the death penalty, the same can't be said for liberalism were criminals roam free to terrorise the public. What about heroic acts taken by the soldiers to save the lives of Iraqi's and there brothers in arms. There is plenty of evedence of these acts so why have you, like the media, decided to ignore it. Also where were you when Saddam was killing civillians? why suddenly are you now so outraged. Hypocrite.
HA HA HA you quote Apocalype Now, a holllywood film .No wonder you are deluded. Open a history book you might learn something.
Yeah Bush wanted the war to go down the toilet. Nothing like having a destabilized country to get the oil flowing. Having innocent civillians dying as well as your soldiers really sends your popularity through the roof. Never mind all the money it soaks up, after all Bush loves losing money more than anything. The majority of Iraqs wanted Saddam removed. If you remove an oppressive dictator it is called liberating( it is in the dictionary, look it up).
What resources have been annexed? The resources of the country belong to the Iraqi government. Remember millions of brave Iraqis voted for them. I would hate to see how you manage your money. The war is costing the Americans billions.
I understand those words but they aren't relevant to Iraq. You on the other hand seem to not know. I suggest you take a look at this site http://dictionary.reference.com . More evidence of suspect mental health.
What Imperealism? I don't see any colonies around anywhere. No they are not religious fanatics. Many non religious people support the war in Iraq. I would to think democracy is a lesser evil than Islamic Fundamentalism and ruthless dictators. I see a lot more people moving to demorcratic countries than any othes so I guess that means something must be better. It is all good and well swearing Love, Peace, Forgiveness for all peoples but what's the point if you don't defend. Don't other people deserve a chance at it as well.
I tried to find that joke amusing but couldn't. I hope you are not to disapointed cause I see you put a lot of effort into it. It must of taken an hour of intense thought to come up with that. Was a headache worth it?
I see you are sick, sick in the head that is. Here check out this sight, because whatever you are on isn't helping.
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/
I personally recommend researching Paranoid Shizophrenia. Checking if any of your great grandparents were from the same family may help as well.
Of coures torture is wrong. Giving a robust interrogation isn't. I don't recall POW's in past wars having trials. Finally we agree on something, your right about the Geneva Conventions and the U.N is a joke. Islamic Fundamentalist have killed hundreds of thousands from the U.S across Asia to Australia. What about Communists, Nazis and Liberals. Boo hoo people like Bin Laden, Mugabe, Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Kim Dae-jung and Nasrallah don't like us. Lots of ordinary people still like America. It is just that we don't control the media. You are a perfect example of the saying "Empty cans rattle the most".
Hey no hard feelings. You can't help it. It is not like you chose be be a retarded.
shame
from the way I remember it - he got much support going into the war with Iraq - he's polls were at an all time high.
do you think your "small minority" was bigger or smaller than Saddam's "minority?"
the war wasn't based on saddam killing civilians - it was based on WMD - saddam killing civilians was the excuse they came up with afterwards - um, not so long after rumsfield shook saddams hand - as the buddy of america.
Um, nuremberg?
Oh - you mean the infrastructure bombed into the stone age by america. (shoot them with a 50 cal then give them a bandaid) - which part of this sentence don't you understand?
Which joke? Oh this one?
Oh, and torture and detainment indefinitely - are GOOD things!! Fuk the geneva conventions, the amercan constitution - and all those other good/bad things - the UN is a joke etc... The blood of hundreds of thousands of people - from South America to the Far East - is on American hands... Um, now I wonder why no one likes us anymore??!
Isn't that exactly what you just wrote?
No matter your delusion - the truth doesn't need you.
Last edited:
Well I remember his polls being at there highest in the months after 9/11. I also remember demonstrations against the build up to war. Maybe someone knows where we could find poll results from say early 2002 and early 2003.
How can you even begin to compare the two
Yeah WMD that every major country believed he had. Clinton did, as well as Saddam's generals. He did use WMD on his own people. After all arent WMD meant to be used on people. That is why you don't let tyrants have WMD. Yes the U.S backed Iraq because at the time Iran was seen as the bigger threat. Just like the allies backed the Soviets WW2. Was that wrong?
Um, Nuremburg happend after the war. Unless of course all my history books were wrong
The U.S only bombed targets that had a direct effect on enemy installations. Anyway the U.S is trying not only to rebuild but to improve it. What kind of "Freedom Fighter" destroys the infrastructure of his own country causing mass suffering of his own people. Maybe you could explain that to me?
This joke" Be careful - an airliner flown by Iraqi fundamentalist jihad fascist killers - could just fall on your head - "at least I assumed it was. You weren't
being serious where you?
The truth hurts. That is why you choose to ignore it.
How can you even begin to compare the two
Yeah WMD that every major country believed he had. Clinton did, as well as Saddam's generals. He did use WMD on his own people. After all arent WMD meant to be used on people. That is why you don't let tyrants have WMD. Yes the U.S backed Iraq because at the time Iran was seen as the bigger threat. Just like the allies backed the Soviets WW2. Was that wrong?
Um, Nuremburg happend after the war. Unless of course all my history books were wrong
The U.S only bombed targets that had a direct effect on enemy installations. Anyway the U.S is trying not only to rebuild but to improve it. What kind of "Freedom Fighter" destroys the infrastructure of his own country causing mass suffering of his own people. Maybe you could explain that to me?
This joke" Be careful - an airliner flown by Iraqi fundamentalist jihad fascist killers - could just fall on your head - "at least I assumed it was. You weren't
being serious where you?
The truth hurts. That is why you choose to ignore it.
Last edited:
Yeah WMD that every major country believed he had. Clinton did, as well as Saddam's generals. He did use WMD on his own people. After all arent WMD meant to be used on people. That is why you don't let tyrants have WMD. Yes the U.S backed Iraq because at the time Iran was seen as the bigger threat. Just like the allies backed the Soviets WW2. Was that wrong?
Um, now let's see: oh - now all of a sudden its not about getting rid of a ruthless killer - but WMD - that ALL the world believed in... Um - wasn't this WMD based on FALSE security reports produced by Rumsfield - and marketed at the UN by Powell? Against - the opinion of america's own nuclear/wmd inspectors? Um - didn't we sell them the wmd in the first place? (How then is it that "we don't let tyrants have wmd?")
The allies didn't "back" the soviets - they fought their own wars against a common enemy - maybe aided - but certainly not "backed". Once again you are trying to tell me this was about getting rid of a tyrant - um, was Powell selling the tyrant or wmd at the UN?
Um, Nuremburg happend after the war. Unless of course all my history books were wrong
-> I don't recall POW's in past wars having trials.
Oh - so this "imaginary" war is still ongoing - is this why it is not "after the war?"
Well I remember his polls being at there highest in the months after 9/11. I also remember demonstrations against the build up to war. Maybe someone knows where we could find poll results from say early 2002 and early 2003.
Funny - I don't particularly remember this - as said - I remember the FALSE hysteria caused by bush - and him ignoring the un. I certainly don't remember any "demonstrations against the buildup to war."
The U.S only bombed targets that had a direct effect on enemy installations. Anyway the U.S is trying not only to rebuild but to improve it. What kind of "Freedom Fighter" destroys the infrastructure of his own country causing mass suffering of his own people. Maybe you could explain that to me?
Um a freedom fighter that hates the invasion of their country? Or one that dislikes america's presence in the middle east? Um maybe ex-saddam supporters - or how about supporters of that big bogeyman OBL? (paid cia henchman that he is?)
The truth hurts. That is why you choose to ignore it.
Gaga. Please feed me the lies - otherwise how do I justify 100 000 + (probably more like 500 000) civilians - and over 2000 dead american troops?
(Isn't it funny - you deriding my "joke" - but basing your support on it.)
--
Larry King asks Clinton about Cheney's statement that the Bush Administration would do "exactly the same thing" in Iraq, even if they knew there were no WMD's. Clinton says "the evidence has been made clear now" that he and the other neocons "did not care" whether Saddam had WMD or any involvement in 9/11. Clinton goes on "...I think they thought [the Iraqi invasion] might clean their own skirts a little since most of what Saddam did that was really terrible, he did when he had the full support of the Republican administrations in the 80's -- of which **** Cheney was a part. [...] but much of what [Saddam] did in using chemical weapons and killing innocent civilians and all the terrible things he did in the 1980's, he did without a peep of criticism from some of the same people who have prosecuted this war."
Um, now let's see: oh - now all of a sudden its not about getting rid of a ruthless killer - but WMD - that ALL the world believed in... Um - wasn't this WMD based on FALSE security reports produced by Rumsfield - and marketed at the UN by Powell? Against - the opinion of america's own nuclear/wmd inspectors? Um - didn't we sell them the wmd in the first place? (How then is it that "we don't let tyrants have wmd?")
The allies didn't "back" the soviets - they fought their own wars against a common enemy - maybe aided - but certainly not "backed". Once again you are trying to tell me this was about getting rid of a tyrant - um, was Powell selling the tyrant or wmd at the UN?
Um, Nuremburg happend after the war. Unless of course all my history books were wrong
-> I don't recall POW's in past wars having trials.
Oh - so this "imaginary" war is still ongoing - is this why it is not "after the war?"
Well I remember his polls being at there highest in the months after 9/11. I also remember demonstrations against the build up to war. Maybe someone knows where we could find poll results from say early 2002 and early 2003.
Funny - I don't particularly remember this - as said - I remember the FALSE hysteria caused by bush - and him ignoring the un. I certainly don't remember any "demonstrations against the buildup to war."
The U.S only bombed targets that had a direct effect on enemy installations. Anyway the U.S is trying not only to rebuild but to improve it. What kind of "Freedom Fighter" destroys the infrastructure of his own country causing mass suffering of his own people. Maybe you could explain that to me?
Um a freedom fighter that hates the invasion of their country? Or one that dislikes america's presence in the middle east? Um maybe ex-saddam supporters - or how about supporters of that big bogeyman OBL? (paid cia henchman that he is?)
The truth hurts. That is why you choose to ignore it.
Gaga. Please feed me the lies - otherwise how do I justify 100 000 + (probably more like 500 000) civilians - and over 2000 dead american troops?
(Isn't it funny - you deriding my "joke" - but basing your support on it.)
--
Larry King asks Clinton about Cheney's statement that the Bush Administration would do "exactly the same thing" in Iraq, even if they knew there were no WMD's. Clinton says "the evidence has been made clear now" that he and the other neocons "did not care" whether Saddam had WMD or any involvement in 9/11. Clinton goes on "...I think they thought [the Iraqi invasion] might clean their own skirts a little since most of what Saddam did that was really terrible, he did when he had the full support of the Republican administrations in the 80's -- of which **** Cheney was a part. [...] but much of what [Saddam] did in using chemical weapons and killing innocent civilians and all the terrible things he did in the 1980's, he did without a peep of criticism from some of the same people who have prosecuted this war."