Print

[dss311]

QUOTE

Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.

Source NY Times

[pug_ster]

I'm surprised you said that.  Because NYT offically supports Kerry.

[dss311]

)


Dss311


edit:spelling

[Heet]

[dss311]

QUOTE

All the guys from the Swift Vote ads weren't on Kerry's boat.

All of these men served with John Kerry in the military.  (just because they all didn't ride on the same buss to camp doesn't give less validaty to their claims.)

QUOTE

The whole reason for going to war was because Iraq was an 'eminent threat' and possessed WMD's.

Wrong again.  WMDs were not the "whole reason".  Violation of 17 UN resolutions over 11 years prompted us to act.  WMD's was an additional reason for acting.

QUOTE

Colin Powel lied to the UN about setallite photos showing WMD sites and saying they knew exactly where they were only to find empty trailors with no chemical residue showing any signs of a weapon that could have attacked us or neighboring countries

Lying is something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.  Although Colin Powell may have had inacurate information does need mean he intentionally meant to decieve.  If you have some facts to support your claim he lied, please enlighten us.  Also, because they were not found, does not mean they didn't exist.

QUOTE

Iraq also had no connections to Al-queda

Although the evidence is minimal, there is some evidence.  You claimed there is "no evidence".  Al-zawari for one is linked to Al-qaeda.  

QUOTE

The fact is with regards to the Iraq war, we had time to get things in place and to get more allies on board or at least have a better game plan.

Over thirty-five countries participated in the operation to some extent.   These countries did not support us:

1. Russia - they were supllying GPS jamers
2. France - Supplying missles
3. Germany - Supplied Bunkers

Have a better plan? we rolled through Iraq in two weeks.  Are you suggesting we needed a better plan to win the peace?

QUOTE

I'm gay

Enough said.  One messed up individual.........

[brandogg]

A lot of you people are forgetting what 9/11 means to the US. It means we can't afford to sit around and wait for an attack. It means if there's evidence (which the entire US government believed, and the UN) that an enemy like Iraq is making WMDs, and that they were somehow connected with Al Qaeda (which is what the intelligence also told the entire US gov't), then we need to go in and take out the enemy before it attacks us on our homeland.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (dss311 @ Oct 22 2004, 08:34 AM)

It was a sarcastic comment about the bias of the NYT.  In one article they mention bad opinions about Bush.  Latter on  they report  Kerry's ill traits.  It is hard to see how they endorse Kerry and then write articles like the one I posted.

The film is in the 'Arts' Section and not in the main news section.  It just describes what the film without dramatizing it.  Whereas many of the political news articles are critical of Bush and his Administration.  The thing I like about NYT is that it can write a story without all the spin.

QUOTE

Anyone see the new Swiftboat ad? Pug_ster reported Bush is alienating party members. Kerry alienated his entire platoon. Last count, I saw 3 swiftvets out of 100 endorse Kerry. Why is that? You would think if he had leadership qualities most of them would side with Kerry.

How do you get 100?  I think most of the veterans are pissed off at Kerry because he protested at the war.  In fact, those veterans are lied about the incident when we found out the truth later.  So why do we have to trust a bunch of lying veterans?

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (brandogg @ Oct 22 2004, 03:06 PM)

A lot of you people are forgetting what 9/11 means to the US. It means we can't afford to sit around and wait for an attack. It means if there's evidence (which the entire US government believed, and the UN) that an enemy like Iraq is making WMDs, and that they were somehow connected with Al Qaeda (which is what the intelligence also told the entire US gov't), then we need to go in and take out the enemy before it attacks us on our homeland.

Bush duped us to go to war in Iraq.  Bush had to bring Colin Powell to the UN at 2/6/03 to convience the UN to tell Iraq to disarm or else...  Powell (who ruined probably ruined his credibility after thsi) just brought a show to the UN told other countries that there is proof that Iraq had WMD.  His proof includes 1) satellite photos of the WMD sites, which could be anything, 2) computer generated pictures of mobil weapons lab (why don't they have a picture of the real thing?) and 3) a vile of WMD that they acquired, which could be anything.

The other countries smelled a lie but pushed on weapons inspections anyways and war as the last resort.  Guess what, Bush decided to use war as a way to disarm for the missing WMD's.

[melon]

QUOTE (brandogg @ Oct 22 2004, 03:06 PM)

A lot of you people are forgetting what 9/11 means to the US. It means we can't afford to sit around and wait for an attack. It means if there's evidence (which the entire US government believed, and the UN) that an enemy like Iraq is making WMDs, and that they were somehow connected with Al Qaeda (which is what the intelligence also told the entire US gov't), then we need to go in and take out the enemy before it attacks us on our homeland.

There has been some people who have been saying since before the war that the Government was talking bullshit. The reasons for going to war have been Compressively proven to be incorrect. Any link with Saddam Hussein has been proven to be false and lies/misinformation.

There was no need to go to war for the safety of either of our countries.  

If you dont belive what i am saying why did Tony Blair apolagise in public because of the information used to go to war? He said all the intelligence we had was wrong.

Why cant people see that most of the anti-war people knew it was bullshit straight away.

With them reasons taken away for going to war and other countries in more devestating situations such as Sudan through war or Ethipoia through famine that could have done with help a lot more urgently the reasons for the war were very Suspicious.

In fact just with British troops we could have secured Sudan and 10% of the money America spent on the war could have saved and rebuilt the lifes of millions of people in Ethiopia, a country where it is still normal to walk miles each day just to get water.

Sorry for rant but I dont understand why people still make excuses up for two shit Governemnts.

[Baner]

QUOTE

I don't see why John Kerry's record is a joke, when Bush wasn't even THERE. He was here in the States, doing jack shit. Viva Bush!

1. You're right, Bush nenver did go to Vietnam, did you have to do alot of research to figure that out?
2. Kerry's record isn't a joke, how he depicts(sp?) it is. He wants to be called a war hero because he spent 4 months in a boat. With the first chance he got, he came back to America
3. I've covered all this, earlier in this same topic. If you want a more detailed explaination, you should actually read thru the topic before posting something.

QUOTE

Bush duped us to go to war in Iraq.

I've said this before too. Clinton pulled the same shit on us back in the early 90s, and what I have to say about that is "Fool me once, Shame on you. Fool me again, Shame on me" or in this case, shame on us all. America believed our intelligence committes, the government believed them, the UK believed it, the UN believed. Sure we did find out later that it was all false, but it was too late. We're there, might as well finish the job.

QUOTE

After everyone that wanted to jump in and fight came to the table, they started to bid for contracts to rebuild Iraq and Bush didn't let countries that opposed the war bid for those contracts.

Do you see what you said wrong? Those who came to the table and wanted to fight started to bid on contracts, and Bush denied the ones who opposed the war to bid on them. Why let countries reek the rewards, if they don't put forth effort to obtain them? Again, I covered this.(Not sure if it was in this topic or another, but I covered it.)

QUOTE

Why cant people see that most of the anti-war people knew it was bullshit straight away.

Because they're anti-war, and would pull up any bullshit that could get their hands on to protest the war. Much like saying, why didn't you guys listen to all the war-loveres when they said we should nuke Iraq.

QUOTE

With them reasons taken away for going to war and other countries in more devestating situations such as Sudan

Why is it not alright to go into Iraq and remove a genocidal tyrant, but freeing poeple in Sudan and Ethopia is ok? If you want a reason why we didn't go into Sudan and we did hit Iraq, here's a couple. Americans would side with the war on Iraq easier due to the recent attack on the WTCs and it being related to Middle Easterners, the fact that there was a genocidal tyrant with the ability to obtain WMDs, and of course, the money.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (Baner @ Oct 22 2004, 07:23 PM)

I've said this before too. Clinton pulled the same shit on us back in the early 90s, and what I have to say about that is "Fool me once, Shame on you. Fool me again, Shame on me" or in this case, shame on us all. America believed our intelligence committes, the government believed them, the UK believed it, the UN believed. Sure we did find out later that it was all false, but it was too late. We're there, might as well finish the job.

Personally, the affair with Monica Lewinsky is a personal problem and nothing to do with his administration.

America believed Bush because he and his Administration said there's WMD in Iraq as a 'stunning revelation.'  Who asserts influence towards the CIA?  George Tenet?  No, it was Bush's Administration.  After the 9/11 commission formed and said there's no credible evidence for WMD, Bush in turn blamed the CIA for it and Tenet resigned.  Believe what you will today, but in the history books years from now you will know the truth.

Finding out too late?  There were UN inspectors in Iraq looking for WMD when Bush decided that diplomacy is over and we should attack Iraq.  Iraq won't be stupid enough to attack then US with their itchy trigger fingers will definately respond if Iraq uses their so called WMD's.

[Baner]

QUOTE

Iraq won't be stupid enough to attack then US with their itchy trigger fingers will definately respond if Iraq uses their so called WMD's.

Could you rephrase or explain that... I'm confused

[pegasys]

I'm thinking that the reson the inspectors found no weapons was because there were none.  And now Bush is saying that "They have the knowledge to get people who know how to make WMD's and they hate america.  Thats just about every country on the planet.  Pre-emptive strikes work but only if you have good intelligence and don't ignore larger threats like Iran and NK.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (Baner @ Oct 22 2004, 07:50 PM)

I think you missed the point about Clinton, I was talking about how he had the UN send in weapon inspectors and they came out empty handed. Could you rephrase or explain that... I'm confused

As far as I know most of the WMD was destroyed after the first gulf war when the UN inspection process had begun.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4125720/

Clinton made sure there were inspectors in the ground.  In 1995, a most senior defector from Iraq who was in charge of WMD's said that all WMD's are destroyed.  Anytime after that, of course the Inspectors will come out empty handed.

[Baner]

That's what I'm saying. We should have known that there was nothing there. Clinton sent in Inspectors, and they turned up empty handed, but for some reason we thought we'd strike gold this time. Even though we had all the information infront of us, no one cared to look at it. We knew as much as the UN, and many other countries, and we thought what we knew was the truth. Not sure why I'm going furthur with this, since we all agree with it.


I need your opinion, does my last post (the longer one, posted at 1:23) sound fair, or does it sound bias. Does it cover the quoted topics, or does it leave questions? I wanna try and see what errors I'm amking in debating. I know many of my posts are drenched in opinions, but, to me, it seems like fair opinions make people think about things more than a link to a random news site.