Print

[pegasys]

You make it sound as if out country is the best think since sliced bread, we had no right to "liberate" Iraq.  If you think back during the revolutionary war we were the terrorists and the insurgent forces using dishonorable tactics.  What would you say if Canada (just used as an example) decided that we shouldn't have a military and WMD’s (which we actually have), and thought that Bush was hurting the people of this country, by his ignorance? What would you do if Canada attacked us usurped our government and put another "better" Canadian government in place?  That wouldn't be right would it, that is exactly what we are doing to Iraq.  We are being imperialistic, under the guise of "liberating" Iraq.  Bush hasn't been able to pull the wool over the world’s eyes, but obviously he as fully covered yours.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE

Um, what? Your "shelf life" statement actually supports the idea that Saddam had fresh chemical weapons - many chemical artillary shells have been found in Iraq, some definitely 80s' era, but several of them could only have been made recently, at the earliest, 1998 or so. I guess having actual chemical weapons in hand, courtesy of Baathist loyalists is not proof?

Yeah, they could've have all those artillary shells, but doesn't mean that they made chemical weapons.  The UN could've searched for chemical weapons.  The US didn't even let the UN enough time to inspect for chemical weapons before the US decided to invade iraq.

QUOTE

Well, you swallowed the blurry media image of Iraq and al qaida's relationship hook-line-and-sinker. They share one common, most hated enemy: the west. Did they work together? There's plenty of evidence Saddam often hosted Taliban and al qaida operatives in Iraq, and we KNOW Iraqi officials made contact with several conspirators of  9/11, according to Interpol and German police.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain630385.shtml

I quote from the article.  "The report will also contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran - just weeks after the Bush administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, TIME magazine reports. "  

Maybe I should be more clear?  Unless you can prove an article from an unbiased source...  Maybe Bush is too dumb to tell the difference betwen Iraq and Iran.

QUOTE

Well, I would say getting warned, versus getting KILLED is a good thing, eh? What happened to the follow-up attacks? None, you say? Perhaps, maybe, you might consider that President Bush's administration might deserve a bit of CREDIT for the LACK of terrorist attacks here in the US and on American interests overseas, even amid the countless threats and deadlines given by terrorist groups? A true idiot would discount this, of course, as proof Bush and his people are getting the job done....

Maybe you didn't know this but the CIA and FBI, NOT the presidential administration's responsibility to gather information to thwart terrorist attacks.  Before Bush's administration, FBI and CIA always have been working (though not 100% though) in the background with much of the media attention.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4734564/

It was Bush's fault that they didn't act those warnings on briefing reports on August 2001.

QUOTE

Actually, Bush has asked the Swiftboat vets to stop the attack ads, and he also called on MoveOn and others to stop as well. Suffice it to say, Kerry won't call off the MoveOn attack dogs, and he continues to ignore the fact that Bush did exactly what the DNC asked him to do. I guess you repeat a lie enough times (in this case, "Bush should call off the attacks", when he already has) and it just becomes true, eh?

Yeah, moveon.org are attack dogs.  I think that Swiftboat Veterians for Lies still shoving their ads even though Bush ask them to stop.  So what is the difference...?  The Bush Admistration should point out the lies of what moveon.org says, or they have nothing to say.

QUOTE

Wow.... nobody was worse than Carter - he gave away too much (Panama turned into the Noriega fiasco), supported Saddam AND Bin Laden and didn't act to prevent Islamists from taking over Iran. Much of the current problems can be traced to HIS failed diplomacy.

Carter wasn't a good president, yes.  But president Reagan and then VP Bush Sr also helped out Saddam and Bin Laden too.

QUOTE

As for Bush's failing, what, exactly are they? I pay less in taxes, inflation remains low, as do interest rates. The recession is recovering, rather than plunging further, and unemployment rates remain about the same level as averaged under Clinton's term. All that in the face of the dstruction of the World Trade Center, causing trillions of dollars in fallout/damage to the world and American economies.

You're right about the tax cuts.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain636398.shtml

Problem, is that I am not in that top 1% to reap the rewards.  

The unemployment rate is misleading.  Unemployment rate means that the amount of people filing for umemployment vs. the amount of people who are currently employed.   There are alot of people who just gave up looking for the job, doesn't claim unemployed, thus does not become part of the unemployed statistic.  The amount of people who are employed in the US today is not as high before Bush took office.  Second, many people who actually found a job didn't get as much money as their last job.

The reason for the low interest rate was the recession.  If there was a growth in the economy, you will see the interest rate rise.  Sometimes a rise in interest rate might be a good thing to the economy to slow down economy growth.

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 25 2004, 07:59 PM)

Well, it's the term used by George Tenet and other Clinton-era intell people in their build up of evidence supporting the conclusion that Saddam was working on WMD production. Yellowcake A product of Uranium Ore, required to process into enriched Uranium. Now, I knew exactly what I was talking about, but it seems you apparently do not? Perhaps you confused the term with "Urinal cake"? I can't understand how you might make that kind of strange leap, but it explains your perplexing lack of understanding.

hahaha, no no no


thats not what i meant at all


i know what yellow cake is, and i know all about the stories of sadaam trying to buy it, but if thats the only real evidence the US has on sadaam, give it up, thats fucking pathetic


also, the yellow cake ordeal is one thing you dont use as an argument that sadaam could/does have wmd's, as its never been entirely proven

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 02:08 AM)

[ This did not require the existence of any WMDs, only his refusal to permit weapons inspectors free access to all sites.

QUOTE

There were other violations as well... probably too numerous to detail here. It's a situation similar to what the Germans did prior to WWII, where they built up their navies and armies with total disregard to the Armistice agreements from WWI, and look what happened when the World League and an isolationist America ignored THOSE violations.

That's interesting.  I don't think we should compare Germany with Iraq in terms of arms race.  Most of the arms that Iraq came has from us during the 1980's and they brought some of them from Russians (I could be wrong about it.)  But in terms of the threat level, they are nowhere near what the US can do.  This is compared US and Germany during the 1930's.  There is no way for Iraq to be another Germany.

QUOTE

History teaches us a lot. If you want to study truly unjust wars, try spending some time reading up on the Thirty Years' War (the dangers of religious intolerance). You might also want to examine just about any socialist aggression (liberalism married to anarchy, enforced by a despot) in the past century.

Allright, I think you are going too off tangent here.  Are you saying that Kerry is a despot because I didn't know about it until you said it.

[BenJeremy]

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 26 2004, 11:28 AM)

Yeah, they could've have all those artillary shells, but doesn't mean that they made chemical weapons.  The UN could've searched for chemical weapons.  The US didn't even let the UN enough time to inspect for chemical weapons before the US decided to invade iraq.

Yes, because 5 years for a handful of people being led around on a leash by Iraqi handlers is just not enough time (I agree).... but then, under the conditions allowed, how long is enough?

5 years is far too long to wait for those teams to be unshackled and given the access it needed.

QUOTE

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain630385.shtml I quote from the article.  "The report will also contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran - just weeks after the Bush administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, TIME magazine reports. "  Maybe I should be more clear?  Unless you can prove an article from an unbiased source...  Maybe Bush is too dumb to tell the difference betwen Iraq and Iran.

Gee, I guess since al qaida was in cahoots with Iran, that rules out them operating with anybody else? That's a ridiculous bit of flawed logic.

Sorry, I don't care for misdirection as a debate technique. Regardless of ties al qaida had with any other country, there was, undoubtably, evidence of ties with Saddam, and he was the most visible and easily confrontanble state sponsor of terrorism.

Dealing with Iran presents a whole slew of problems, beginning with simple matters of diplomacy. Essentially, there were TWO tigers to take care of, but first, you divide and conquer - Iraq was in violation of ceasefire agreements, which enabled the US o deal with that problem first (and both were problems, beyond a doubt). If the US had picked on Iran, where would the justification be?

Regardless of your own personal beliefs, the US had legal justification for deposing Saddam; we don't have that in dealing with Iran. At that point, the decision is simple - take out the known state sponsor of terror that we can, and deal with the others at a later time, if needed.

QUOTE

Maybe you didn't know this but the CIA and FBI, NOT the presidential administration's responsibility to gather information to thwart terrorist attacks.  Before Bush's administration, FBI and CIA always have been working (though not 100% though) in the background with much of the media attention. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4734564/ It was Bush's fault that they didn't act those warnings on briefing reports on August 2001.

I see, so Bush doesn't get credit for stopping attacks now, but gets the blame for failing to stop them before.

Nice double standard there, pal.  

With logic like that, it's clear you won't deal with the facts in a reasonable manner, but I'll plow on for the benefit of open minded people who might be reading.

QUOTE

Yeah, moveon.org are attack dogs.  I think that Swiftboat Veterians for Lies still shoving their ads even though Bush ask them to stop.  So what is the difference...?  The Bush Admistration should point out the lies of what moveon.org says, or they have nothing to say.

Nice name calling ("Swiftboat Veterians for Lies"). Does it work for you on the playground?

Kerry whined and cried about the ads, but has yet to refute any of the facts they've presented - instead, merely threatening stations and stores with vague threats. Meanwhile, organizations like MoveOn.org compare Bush with Hitler (only a raving lunatic would seriously make that comparison) and perpetuate myths (for example, calling for so-called "missing" records that have already been revealed).

Yes, Bush asked them to stop. Has Kerry reciprocated? NOPE. He simply has acted like he's got both fingers in his ears going "la la la la I can't hear you telling them to stop" and pulling dumb stunts like sending more letters to ask Bush to do what he's ALREADY DONE.

QUOTE

Carter wasn't a good president, yes.  But president Reagan and then VP Bush Sr also helped out Saddam and Bin Laden too. QUOTE Erm, Reagan's people STOPPED the U.S.'s relationship with Saddam in the early 80s, when it was clear the guy was far worse than the average tyrant (any government will deal with "bad guys" - as long as they see a benefit in it). Same goes for Bin Laden's merry bunch of Mujhadeen in Afghanistan. ENDED. THE. RELATIONSHIP. Carter began it. See the difference? If I, by virtue of being handed ownership of a car, find the motor is problematic, untrustworthy, and burning oil (which was the case when the previous owner HAD THE ENGINE PUT IN), decide to remove the engine in favor of a new one, how EXACTLY does that make me responsible for the bad engine, again? You're right about the tax cuts. http://www.cbsnews.c...ain636398.shtml Problem, is that I am not in that top 1% to reap the rewards.

I'm not in the top 1%, either. I'm firmly in the middle class.... My home is worth much more then the $70k I paid for it 10 years ago, but it's no mansion. The tax cut has given me a nice breather.

Kepe swallowing the lines, Pug_ster, they've got you wrapped up by the gonads, as long as you keep believing in Robin Hood. The problem is that THIS Robin Hood has a track history of taxing the top 100%.

QUOTE

The unemployment rate is misleading.  Unemployment rate means that the amount of people filing for umemployment vs. the amount of people who are currently employed.   There are alot of people who just gave up looking for the job, doesn't claim unemployed, thus does not become part of the unemployed statistic.  The amount of people who are employed in the US today is not as high before Bush took office.  Second, many people who actually found a job didn't get as much money as their last job.

No, it's not that misleading. People "give up" seeking employment all the time, believe it or not, there are people who "gave up" 10 years ago, 15 years ago, whatever... statistics can be spun just about anywhich way.

The thing most reasonable people remember is that Dubya was elected during the onset of a recession. The economy was on a downturn. The dot com bubble had burst, the AG was smashing the golden goose (M$) with antitrust lawsuits at the behest of Novell and Sun, and the Enrons and Worldcoms were just nearing the end of their unabaited (and apparently, mostly "virtual") growth on the coat tails of those dot coms. Instead of a slight dip of a cycle that we SHOULD have experienced in the mid-90s, we got a double-wallop at the end of the decade as part of a correction.

I'd say ol' "Dubya" faired pretty well, considering how bad it might have become.

QUOTE

The reason for the low interest rate was the recession.  If there was a growth in the economy, you will see the interest rate rise.  Sometimes a rise in interest rate might be a good thing to the economy to slow down economy growth.

Yes, that's why the rates went SOOOOOO HIGH during the 90s, right? Honestly, the interest rates have been stable for the last decade and a half. Most of that is because Greenspan has not had a need to increase the Fed to stimulate the economy. Another sign the current administration has done a decent job controlling things.

[BenJeremy]

QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ Aug 26 2004, 11:39 AM)

hahaha, no no no thats not what i meant at all i know what yellow cake is, and i know all about the stories of sadaam trying to buy it, but if thats the only real evidence the US has on sadaam, give it up, thats fucking pathetic also, the yellow cake ordeal is one thing you dont use as an argument that sadaam could/does have wmd's, as its never been entirely proven

It's not the only real evidence; it's just the most reaidly understood by the "masses" and the most prominent, thanks to the whole CIA-leak scandal.

I don't have the link handy, but after the invasion, plenty of evidence was found to support the idea that Saddam developed WMDs, even if no stockpiles were found. This is where the media has been quick to play word games to dance around the clear indications that something was up.


If Saddam moved all that material to Syria, or had it buried in the deep desert and killed the people who know about it, how would we find those stockpiles?

[BenJeremy]

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 26 2004, 12:18 PM)

That's interesting.  I don't think we should compare Germany with Iraq in terms of arms race.  Most of the arms that Iraq came has from us during the 1980's and they brought some of them from Russians (I could be wrong about it.)  But in terms of the threat level, they are nowhere near what the US can do.  This is compared US and Germany during the 1930's.  There is no way for Iraq to be another Germany. Allright, I think you are going too off tangent here.  Are you saying that Kerry is a despot because I didn't know about it until you said it.

The comparison was simply this: In one case, we ignored the obvious violations of an armistice agreement, and it resulted in war.

The same might have happened if we had chosen to continue ignoring Saddam's desire to pursue ABC weaponary (the poor man's equalizer on the battlefield - but Saddam was no poor man, either)


Do you understand the doctrines of modern warfare? There are limits to which ABC weapons are to be used in theaters where they are (unfortunately) unleashed, at least in what is taught in the West (as well as in Russia). Saddam, however, had no such limits - his uses included (past tense, since he's already demonstrated by example) genocide and terror.


War is a terrible thing, make no mistake about it, but there's no such thing as world peace, nor will there ever be. Those who choose to turn their backs on the need to use controlled violence as a means to an end, when other options become impractical, will perish.

To hear the raving lunatics screech about it, you'd think "Dubya" was sending troops to squash Luxembourgh for farting in their general direction - but that's not the case, and it's disengenuous to make the case that Saddam was an innocent babe who was doing nothing wrong, or that he threatened nobody in the U.S.

[BenJeremy]

QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Aug 26 2004, 01:29 PM)

Kerry's response It's a candidates site so of course is 99% fluff... However, the point is there.  The men didn't serve with him on the boat, there's no proof that doctor ever worked on him at all.  I'm sorry if a rebuttal of SwiftBoat Veterans for Bush offends you BJ, but people are going to make them.  They're not fighting for the rights of veterans here, they're fighting for Bush/Cheney '04.

Again, if you can't use the correct term for the group, you've got NO objectivity.

It's not "SwiftBoat Veterans for Bush"

...and Kerry involved them when he used their images in his campaign.


If he didn't want these people to come forward, he should have stuck to his anti-war stance.

Kerry and the democrats have been nothing but a pain-in-the-ass for acrtive servicemen and vets alike. I served when a democrat-controlled congress voted down cost-of-living pay increases while voting themselves the biggest raises ever. Vietnam vets will remember Kerry's own words used to taunt POWs in Hanoi.

[BenJeremy]

Here it is

More detailed

It's on their front page, the picture used in his campaign (seen in the TV ads), as well as details on who's supporting him - and who's not.

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 12:19 PM)

It's not the only real evidence; it's just the most reaidly understood by the "masses" and the most prominent, thanks to the whole CIA-leak scandal. I don't have the link handy, but after the invasion, plenty of evidence was found to support the idea that Saddam developed WMDs, even if no stockpiles were found. This is where the media has been quick to play word games to dance around the clear indications that something was up. If Saddam moved all that material to Syria, or had it buried in the deep desert and killed the people who know about it, how would we find those stockpiles?

the funny thing about that is, we would be able to find them

if its just 1 or 5 WMD's, maybe you wouldnt, but if its a whole stock pile he tried to smuggle out of iraq and into syria, thatd be hard to miss from the air (i mean, we had lots of good shots of empty "bio-hazard" trucks or tractor trailers with "weapons labs" on them, how could we miss a convoy of trucks carraying weapons into a country??)


and if they burried them, they must have dug some big holes to hide them all, and keep them deep enough for us to detect any leaks, i mean hell, it takes a huge, huge ass concrete box to keep nuclear waste from seeping out, and even then, it still does seep into the ground, so, once again, im sure are intel and air patrols would have noticed a 20'x20' hole in the ground lined with cement right???

(it doesnt even have to be cement, if they burried them straight into a hole in a rush, ttheyd leak pretty quick, unless sadaam really did have "hollow titanium tubes used for missiles" everyone said he had)

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 06:15 PM)

QUOTE

Yes, because 5 years for a handful of people being led around on a leash by Iraqi handlers is just not enough time (I agree).... but then, under the conditions allowed, how long is enough? 5 years is far too long to wait for those teams to be unshackled and given the access it needed.

I think 5 years of people leading off by the leash is better costing 100 billions of $'s and hundreds of american lives.  Then again, it is probably too much of a headache to talk about it...

QUOTE

Gee, I guess since al qaida was in cahoots with Iran, that rules out them operating with anybody else? That's a ridiculous bit of flawed logic. Sorry, I don't care for misdirection as a debate technique. Regardless of ties al qaida had with any other country, there was, undoubtably, evidence of ties with Saddam, and he was the most visible and easily confrontanble state sponsor of terrorism. Dealing with Iran presents a whole slew of problems, beginning with simple matters of diplomacy. Essentially, there were TWO tigers to take care of, but first, you divide and conquer - Iraq was in violation of ceasefire agreements, which enabled the US o deal with that problem first (and both were problems, beyond a doubt). If the US had picked on Iran, where would the justification be?

You know, I don't blame you why you said that in the first place.  Must of this information was recently de-classified.  Before this, The Bush Administration was referring Iraq as an 'Terrorist Regime' and blaming Iraq having all those WMD which we never found.  I mean that I was convienced by all the news media about associating Al Qaeda and Iraq last year.  Before the 9/11 independent investigation came out, we don't know better.

QUOTE

I see, so Bush doesn't get credit for stopping attacks now, but gets the blame for failing to stop them before. Nice double standard there, pal.  With logic like that, it's clear you won't deal with the facts in a reasonable manner, but I'll plow on for the benefit of open minded people who might be reading.

I never said that Bush having credit for stopping attacks now.  I am just pointing out that we shouldn't give Bush full credit for this stuff.  But it seems that Bush is hogging the spotlight for what FBI and CIA has been doing for years.

QUOTE

Nice name calling ("Swiftboat Veterians for Lies"). Does it work for you on the playground? Kerry whined and cried about the ads, but has yet to refute any of the facts they've presented - instead, merely threatening stations and stores with vague threats. Meanwhile, organizations like MoveOn.org compare Bush with Hitler (only a raving lunatic would seriously make that comparison) and perpetuate myths (for example, calling for so-called "missing" records that have already been revealed). Yes, Bush asked them to stop. Has Kerry reciprocated? NOPE. He simply has acted like he's got both fingers in his ears going "la la la la I can't hear you telling them to stop" and pulling dumb stunts like sending more letters to ask Bush to do what he's ALREADY DONE.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5782560/

This is like an 'he said, she said' debate but if you read here.  I appreciate for you putting those comments, but have some proof before making them.

QUOTE

I'm not in the top 1%, either. I'm firmly in the middle class.... My home is worth much more then the $70k I paid for it 10 years ago, but it's no mansion. The tax cut has given me a nice breather. Kepe swallowing the lines, Pug_ster, they've got you wrapped up by the gonads, as long as you keep believing in Robin Hood. The problem is that THIS Robin Hood has a track history of taxing the top 100%.

I like this spirited debate, but I would appreciate for you to leave my gonads out of the picture.  If you have proof that this 'Robinhood has a tax history ot taxing the top 100%", I like to see it.  Please don't pull the news from right wing fox news, or left wing cnn.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain636398.shtml

QUOTE

Yes, that's why the rates went SOOOOOO HIGH during the 90s, right? Honestly, the interest rates have been stable for the last decade and a half. Most of that is because Greenspan has not had a need to increase the Fed to stimulate the economy. Another sign the current administration has done a decent job controlling things.

Greenspan was here since the Clinton Days, Greenspan should get the credit and may not be from the administration.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 06:28 PM)

The comparison was simply this: In one case, we ignored the obvious violations of an armistice agreement, and it resulted in war. The same might have happened if we had chosen to continue ignoring Saddam's desire to pursue ABC weaponary (the poor man's equalizer on the battlefield - but Saddam was no poor man, either) Do you understand the doctrines of modern warfare? There are limits to which ABC weapons are to be used in theaters where they are (unfortunately) unleashed, at least in what is taught in the West (as well as in Russia). Saddam, however, had no such limits - his uses included (past tense, since he's already demonstrated by example) genocide and terror. War is a terrible thing, make no mistake about it, but there's no such thing as world peace, nor will there ever be. Those who choose to turn their backs on the need to use controlled violence as a means to an end, when other options become impractical, will perish. To hear the raving lunatics screech about it, you'd think "Dubya" was sending troops to squash Luxembourgh for farting in their general direction - but that's not the case, and it's disengenuous to make the case that Saddam was an innocent babe who was doing nothing wrong, or that he threatened nobody in the U.S.

Yes, we have spent the efforts in Iraq when we can spend our efforts somewhere else.   I can name a couple...

Afghanistan - Even though about 20k troups are there, Warlords still run parts of that country.  Their major export is opium which the us troops did not focus as the problem.  Instead of putting an effort of getting of Al Qaeda in there, Bush diverted money from there in his war in Iraq.  Besides money from rich Muslims, how else can Al Qaeda have money to wage their wars?

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain589500.shtml

North Korea - Recently North Korea has the capability to have rocket launched nuclear weapons.  You never hear Bush focus problems there...

Sudan - Thousands of people die and killed there everyday because of an ongoing civil war.  Only the UN stepped up to the plate to do something about it, not the US.

Israel - Palestine - Since unrest between the 2 states all the past presidents have tried to bring peace between the 2 countries.  Bush W is the first president who really did nothing about it.

[BenJeremy]

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 26 2004, 03:33 PM)

Yes, we have spent the efforts in Iraq when we can spend our efforts somewhere else.   I can name a couple... Afghanistan - Even though about 20k troups are there, Warlords still run parts of that country.  Their major export is opium which the us troops did not focus as the problem.  Instead of putting an effort of getting of Al Qaeda in there, Bush diverted money from there in his war in Iraq.  Besides money from rich Muslims, how else can Al Qaeda have money to wage their wars? http://www.cbsnews.c...ain589500.shtml

Hmmm... first off, Afghanistan is a pretty big place, even if you have 100k troops there... change does not happen overnight, but keep in mind, you certainly don't hear about much fighting going on there, unless it's a small band in the mountains. The Taliban and al qaida there are on the run, and the US has made great strides. Additionally, the UN is supposed to be helping us out there now, so other countries can pour their resources to help combat whatever threat you apparently still see there.

The most important thing is to stabalize a non-radical government there, and prevent it from becoming a huge training camp and financier (through drug trade) of terror.

BTW: the link you posted doesn't really state WHERE those drugs came from. It mentions the old source as Afghanistan, not as a current source, for al qaida supporting drug trafficking.

QUOTE

North Korea - Recently North Korea has the capability to have rocket launched nuclear weapons.  You never hear Bush focus problems there...

Actually, we've done quite a bit. It seems as though we have a lot of leverage in this sitation with China, which has put pressure on NK, and has far more reason to prevent NK aggression and terror in the region, due to it's new prosperity and trade ties to the West.

There has been plenty of action and lots of focus by the administration there - but because you live and die by the media, you won't see it - the action is in covering a car accident in Basra, of course!

QUOTE

Sudan - Thousands of people die and killed there everyday because of an ongoing civil war.  Only the UN stepped up to the plate to do something about it, not the US.

Please, this is an example where the UN has done FAR WORSE for the situation than they've helped. The US has stayed on the side because it's a legacy problem of the French and Europe in general. There is genocide going on, all the while, Annan and company stammer and sputter instead of taking action. It would be ridiculous for the US to push a presence there while the UN supposedly has it in hand.

Sudan is one of the most disgusting examples of UN ineptitude and evil since...

QUOTE

Israel - Palestine - Since unrest between the 2 states all the past presidents have tried to bring peace between the 2 countries.  Bush W is the first president who really did nothing about it.

...oh yeah, since the UN ambulance used to cart around Palistinian gunmen to attack settlers.

I'm disagree with the settlements, but the Wall has been a great boon, reducing attacks to an all time low. Why should we get involved here, either? We support Israel's right to built a fence/wall to prevent terrorists from attacking law abiding Israeli Jewish, Arab, and Christian women and children on buses and in shops.

Anti-semitism is at an all time high, probably as bad or worse than Hitler-era Germany. This should trouble people - mostly because the reasons given (to hate Jews) are total bullshit. The whole Zionism thing is just a smoke screen. Israel exists, and they've kicked everybody's ass who tried to destroy them - and the Palestinians go mostly caught in the middle as their "Arab brethren" made unprovoked war.

Do you side with the intolerance, racism, sexism of religious Islamist states, or with the democratic, tolerant, open state that is Israel?

So tell me what we are supposed to do with that situation, anyway, that we aren't already doing? The Intifada is dead, and Arafat is hanging on by his fingernails. Even many of the Palestinians are willing to see the handwriting on the wall. Used and abused by their so-called allies, treated like second class citizens (Arab version of Gypsies, though the Palestinians are Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian, to a large degree) to forward the Arab Street's goal to destroy the infidels and drive them from the "Holy Land".

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 06:59 PM)

Here it is More detailed It's on their front page, the picture used in his campaign (seen in the TV ads), as well as details on who's supporting him - and who's not.

Well here's the account.  

http://www.washingto...-2004Aug21.html

http://www.boston.co...ry146s_defense/

The thing is that most of the people who countered his claim weren't in the boat with Kerry.  But about more than 100 yards away when they claimed that saw him.  But in the heat of the battle there in that day, would those Swiftboat Veterans for Lies do A) Tried to save the comrads in the boat which was hit and watch out enemy fire or B ) Look at Kerry's boat which they claimed ran away.  

If those vets were in constant fire by Viet Cong and was looking at Kerry's boat to see if it was being hit or not, rather than saving their asses must be stupid or lying.

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 03:04 PM)

Hmmm... first off, Afghanistan is a pretty big place, even if you have 100k troops there... change does not happen overnight, but keep in mind, you certainly don't hear about much fighting going on there, unless it's a small band in the mountains. The Taliban and al qaida there are on the run, and the US has made great strides. Additionally, the UN is supposed to be helping us out there now, so other countries can pour their resources to help combat whatever threat you apparently still see there. The most important thing is to stabalize a non-radical government there, and prevent it from becoming a huge training camp and financier (through drug trade) of terror. BTW: the link you posted doesn't really state WHERE those drugs came from. It mentions the old source as Afghanistan, not as a current source, for al qaida supporting drug trafficking. Actually, we've done quite a bit. It seems as though we have a lot of leverage in this sitation with China, which has put pressure on NK, and has far more reason to prevent NK aggression and terror in the region, due to it's new prosperity and trade ties to the West. There has been plenty of action and lots of focus by the administration there - but because you live and die by the media, you won't see it - the action is in covering a car accident in Basra, of course! Please, this is an example where the UN has done FAR WORSE for the situation than they've helped. The US has stayed on the side because it's a legacy problem of the French and Europe in general. There is genocide going on, all the while, Annan and company stammer and sputter instead of taking action. It would be ridiculous for the US to push a presence there while the UN supposedly has it in hand. Sudan is one of the most disgusting examples of UN ineptitude and evil since... ...oh yeah, since the UN ambulance used to cart around Palistinian gunmen to attack settlers. I'm disagree with the settlements, but the Wall has been a great boon, reducing attacks to an all time low. Why should we get involved here, either? We support Israel's right to built a fence/wall to prevent terrorists from attacking law abiding Israeli Jewish, Arab, and Christian women and children on buses and in shops. Anti-semitism is at an all time high, probably as bad or worse than Hitler-era Germany. This should trouble people - mostly because the reasons given (to hate Jews) are total bullshit. The whole Zionism thing is just a smoke screen. Israel exists, and they've kicked everybody's ass who tried to destroy them - and the Palestinians go mostly caught in the middle as their "Arab brethren" made unprovoked war. Do you side with the intolerance, racism, sexism of religious Islamist states, or with the democratic, tolerant, open state that is Israel? So tell me what we are supposed to do with that situation, anyway, that we aren't already doing? The Intifada is dead, and Arafat is hanging on by his fingernails. Even many of the Palestinians are willing to see the handwriting on the wall. Used and abused by their so-called allies, treated like second class citizens (Arab version of Gypsies, though the Palestinians are Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian, to a large degree) to forward the Arab Street's goal to destroy the infidels and drive them from the "Holy Land".

this is a prime example of how blind people can be when they accuse the UN of doing a bad job..........


The UN only works when a majority of the major countries back the plan/war/event at hand together

but since the US never gets directly involved in UN affairs (Iraq, Palenstine, Sudan) the places turn to shit

look at iraq, its a shitstorm of constent and never ending resistance fighters, and the place itself is a fuck whole, and look at sudan and palenstine....

what do they all have in common.........

either the UN, or the US is taking care of the problem BY THEMSELVES