I just saw farenheit 9/11

[burner69]

http://zzpat.***********/cvb/impeach114.html#Ten_Appalling_Lies_We_Were_Told_About_Iraq

Very bias, but at least it backs up with stats and facts.

 

[burner69]

it's completely baffling that people still support moore and/or his movie. there is more evidence showing the lies of michael moore, than there is of george w. bush. i still have yet to see any credible evidence that bush lied and, supposing he did, that these 'lies' are what led us to invading iraq. all the pro-moore, anti-bush arguments are weak, just as they always have been.

Moore seems the only one of the two to use accurate figures, though he does twist some for his benefit.

"all the pro-moore, anti-bush arguments are weak, just as they always have been" Ie, you don't believe them, despite many points being made being backed up with figures, articles, statistics etc etc.

 

[hasan]

heheh .. it's not like you're gonna prove that bush is good by proving moore is a liar.

 

[burner69]

heheh .. it's not like you're gonna prove that bush is good by proving moore is a liar.

Whatever way you look at it, Bush's actions have killed tens of thousands of people in the last few years. Now if he was telling the truth, it's still bad - cuz u need a dam gud excuse to get away with two going on three wars.

If he's lying he should be imprisoned, along with the rest of his administration.

 

[Bait]

Whatever way you look at it, Bush's actions have killed tens of thousands of people in the last few years. Now if he was telling the truth, it's still bad - cuz u need a dam gud excuse to get away with two going on three wars.

If he's lying he should be imprisoned, along with the rest of his administration.

If a man can get away with such blatant disregard for other human beings and proudly and loudly claiming falseties that result in war being delcared, something awefully wrong must be must happening. Whether it is in the States for re-electing him, or the rest of the world for doing nothing. Bush has started something bad in the world, and I fear it will only go downhill from here.

 

[burner69]

If a man can get away with such blatant disregard for other human beings and proudly and loudly claiming falseties that result in war being delcared, something awefully wrong must be must happening. Whether it is in the States for re-electing him, or the rest of the world for doing nothing. Bush has started something bad in the world, and I fear it will only go downhill from here.

Saying things like that will get you labelled a terrorist, and you will be imprisoned, possibly legally tortured, and hated by anyone who sees/ reads the media.

He's made it watertight.

 

[seinfeldrules]

If a man can get away with such blatant disregard for other human beings and proudly and loudly claiming falseties that result in war being delcared, something awefully wrong must be must happening. Whether it is in the States for re-electing him, or the rest of the world for doing nothing. Bush has started something bad in the world, and I fear it will only go downhill from here.

You're right. I cant wait for WWIII. We'll kick all your asses.

 

[burner69]

You're right. I cant wait for WWIII. We'll kick all your asses.

Might be closer than we think.

And it would be hellish. Although it might seem on here I'm a bit soft on opposing armies, and terrorists oppertating in countries, some of their methods I find deeply evil and disturbing. Imagine if all of them got together against the west.

Hell on earth.

Please stop it now Bush.

 

[CptStern]

You're right. I cant wait for WWIII. We'll kick all your asses.

no you wont, you'll probably be taken out first ..I mean if you (foreign country) have 1 nuke left in your arsenal and you're at war with a coalition made up of say Canada and the US ... who would you fire your last Nuke at: Canada or the US? ...well a smart man would obliterate the US first so as to get rid of the biggest threat, hoping that the smaller threat will be discouraged by the show of force ...buh-bye US of A :E

 

[seinfeldrules]

no you wont, you'll probably be taken out first ..I mean if you (foreign country) have 1 nuke left in your arsenal and you're at war with a coalition made up of say Canada and the US ... who would you fire your last Nuke at: Canada or the US? ...well a smart man would obliterate the US first so as to get rid of the biggest threat, hoping that the smaller threat will be discouraged by the show of force ...buh-bye US of A

Meh, who would hit measly old NH with their only nuke?

 

[burner69]

Nukes are a great* way of stopping wars.

If a country has nuclear capabilities, no one will attack them, because they know what can happen.

That's why it p*sses me off when America decide they have the right to stop Iran - surely Iran has no reason to attack America, or at least no reason that would warrent them getting utterly detroyed an hour later.

*There are better :upstare:

 

[Eg.]

iran has called for the destruction of america since it is the "great SAtan" , not to mention its a bank for terrorists and whatnot. they want nuke tech to make power in oil land? my ass

 

[K e r b e r o s]

no you wont, you'll probably be taken out first ..I mean if you (foreign country) have 1 nuke left in your arsenal and you're at war with a coalition made up of say Canada and the US ... who would you fire your last Nuke at: Canada or the US? ...well a smart man would obliterate the US first so as to get rid of the biggest threat, hoping that the smaller threat will be discouraged by the show of force ...buh-bye US of A

Then Canada will suffer because of an atmosphere polluted with Radiations. You'll all die a horrible, and slow death. Then guess who wins?

Australia.

 

[CptStern]

Then Canada will suffer because of an atmosphere polluted with Radiations. You'll all die a horrible, and slow death. Then guess who wins?

Australia.

since australia is part of the Commonwealth, as is kanada, it'll be no problem to emigrate :E

 

[CptStern]

iran has called for the destruction of america since it is the "great SAtan" , not to mention its a bank for terrorists and whatnot. they want nuke tech to make power in oil land? my ass

pfft, my wife's cousins husband (phew) was in Tehran for a few months awhile back. He said the people were friendly to an obvious westerner and he had no problems whatsoever. He's going back for another business trip in a few months.

 

[seinfeldrules]

pfft, my wife's cousins husband (phew) was in Tehran for a few months awhile back. He said the people were friendly to an obvious westerner and he had no problems whatsoever. He's going back for another business trip in a few months.

How do you respond to the accusations of Iran state sponsoring terrorism?

 

[burner69]

How do you respond to the accusations of Iran state sponsoring terrorism?

It should be stopped. Though it is clearly small scale, and whether or not the state is involved in dodgy dealings (something the US/ UK etc would NEVER do ) the majority are not. And it shall be the majority who will suffer.

Also just cuz they think America is satan, and in light of past and present news I can't really blame them, why should that mean they don't deserve the right to protect their country?

Would you like me to explain again that they would not use the nuclear weapon - because if they did they entire country would be wiped out by a few dozen nukes sailing back over from the coalition.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Though it is clearly small scale, and whether or not the state is involved in dodgy dealings

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31644.htm

Iran

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in the planning of and support for terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.

Iran’s record against al-Qaida remains mixed. After the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, some al-Qaida members fled to Iran where they have found virtual safehaven. Iranian officials have acknowledged that Tehran detained al-Qaida operatives during 2003, including senior members. Iran’s publicized presentation of a list to the United Nations of deportees, however, was accompanied by a refusal to publicly identify senior members in Iranian custody on the grounds of “security.” Iran has resisted calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaida detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for further interrogation and trial.

During 2003, Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli activity, both rhetorically and operationally. Supreme Leader Khamenei praised Palestinian resistance operations, and President Khatami reiterated Iran’s support for the “wronged people of Palestine” and their struggles. Matching this rhetoric with action, Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian rejectionist groups -- notably HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command -- with funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. Iran hosted a conference in August 2003 on the Palestinian intifadah, at which an Iranian official suggested that the continued success of the Palestinian resistance depended on suicide operations.

Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq aimed at securing Tehran’s perceived interests there, some of which ran counter to those of the Coalition. Iran has indicated support for the Iraqi Governing Council and promised to help Iraqi reconstruction.

Shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, individuals with ties to the Revolutionary Guard may have attempted to infiltrate southern Iraq, and elements of the Iranian Government have helped members of Ansar al-Islam transit and find safehaven in Iran. In a Friday Prayers sermon in Tehran in May, Guardian Council member Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati publicly encouraged Iraqis to follow the Palestinian model and participate in suicide operations against Coalition forces.

Iran is a party to five of the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terrorism4.html#iran

Since the inauguration of moderate President Mohammad Khatami in 1997, Iran has taken steps towards liberalization and made conciliatory gestures towards the United States—including public condemnations of terrorist attacks by Algerian and Egyptian groups. It remains, however, one of the most active state sponsors of international terrorism. It continues to support terrorist groups. In the trial of an Iranian and four Lebanese for the 1992 killing of Iranian Kurdish dissidents in a Berlin restaurant, a German court in 1997 found the Government of Iran to have implemented a policy of assassinating dissidents abroad. Iran conducted at least 13 such assassinations in 1997.

Also just cuz they think America is satan, and in light of past and present news I can't really blame them, why should that mean they don't deserve the right to protect their country?

Because it isnt only America who doesnt want Iran to obtain nukes when they blatantly sponsor terrorism.

Would you like me to explain again that they would not use the nuclear weapon - because if they did they entire country would be wiped out by a few dozen nukes sailing back over from the coalition.

Untrue. I dont think the US would respond with nuclear weapons. You are guessing on that anyways.

 

[burner69]

Because it isnt only America who doesnt want Iran to obtain nukes when they blatantly sponsor terrorism.


Untrue. I dont think the US would respond with nuclear weapons. You are guessing on that anyways.

Cheers for the post, very informative.

Yet I'd question if this constitutes invasion of a country, only question it, though - especially because it will clearly only draw out more terrorists, making the problem worse. Rather than continuing with the exact same stances that creates terrorists in the first place, why don't we try looking for alternative solutions, as recent terrorist figures show the war on terror does not work.

Rather than waging a violent war on opposition to the US, why not try and negotiate. It's not as if they want to come into America and take over our land is it? Surely some peaceful agreements can be arranged -- not all, but quite obviously our current methods are not working at all, and rather than helping our people, it is infact doing more harm
http://robots.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.terror/

If violent opposition towards a particular people makes them more violent, then surely ceasing it can only be good.

Or is the idea of bowing down simply not acceptable?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Or is the idea of bowing down simply not acceptable?

Correct. 9/11 ushered out the age of America sitting back on the sidelines waiting to be attacked.

Yet I'd question if this constitutes invasion of a country, only question it, though - especially because it will clearly only draw out more terrorists, making the problem worse. Rather than continuing with the exact same stances that creates terrorists in the first place, why don't we try looking for alternative solutions, as recent terrorist figures show the war on terror does not work.

I'm not sure it does either. If they continue with their nuclear bomb plan then I would say it does. And if not invasion, then clearly aerial bombings to remove the facilities.

 

[Eg.]

if a kid(terrorist) keeps punching u(bombing), and the rest of the yard(wolrd) says its bad to hit(invade) the kid, then what do u do? allow him to keep punching you? by not doing anything, ur making iit easier for them to attack. the "leave it alone, act like their not there" approach just gives them an ego boost.

by attacking them you are defending yourself and donig something, and if u kill the kid, no will punch you

and i just noticed that last part

the US will never bow down to anyone.

 

[burner69]

if a kid(terrorist) keeps punching u(bombing), and the rest of the yard(wolrd) says its bad to hit(invade) the kid, then what do u do? allow him to keep punching you? by not doing anything, ur making iit easier for them to attack. the "leave it alone, act like their not there" approach just gives them an ego boost.

by attacking them you are defending yourself and donig something, and if u kill the kid, no will punch you

and i just noticed that last part

the US will never bow down to anyone.

That dosen't apply to america though.

If you want to use the kid analogy:

Kid America goes down the yard to split up a fight, he beats the sh*t out of Kid B, and Kid C, who he helped, gives him sweets (political backing).

Then Kid B buys the sweets off Kid A (WMDs, tanks, fighter jets etc) and Kid A beats him up and takes them back.

Then Kid A starts taking dinner money off Kid B (third world debt)

Then Kid B gets annoyed and punches Kid A.

Kid A retaliates by beating Kid B again, beating Kid C for possibiliy being in league with B. Then returns to beat kid B.

B and C now team up on A and beat him up a bit.

A beats them up.

B and C beat him up etc etc etc etc etc

If you think terrorists are doing this for their ego you are VERY misguided. They have strong political views that you do not seem to want to accept exist. And because they differ from your own views (that of american life shoudl rule all - in your case it seems) they are expendable.

Imagine if Kid A just wasn't a violent sweet luvin kid, why would Kid C or B want to hit him? Try logic.

 

[Steve]

If only there was a global principal's office we could be sent to...

 

[burner69]

the US will never bow down to anyone.

Yes unfortunatly this attitude of bowing down to nothing, even though you don't belong in the affairs in the first place, is the exact attitude that continues to fuel terrorists against you. Until you and your president realise this you will be continued to be at threat from attack.

 

[Eg.]

first of all, i was talking about dealing with terrorism in general and the nations they backed them. the ego boost would come from The US form stopping any form of retaliation

 

[burner69]

If only there was a global principal's office we could be sent to...

Nice! Ha!
The UN needs to increase its power, and stop letting those crazy kids get into mischief.

 

[Steve]

Nice! Ha!
The UN needs to increase its power, and stop letting those crazy kids get into mischief.

The problem with the UN is that it draws its power from the countries it's supposed to "govern". If it were a separate entity, it could make completely objective decisions. Of course, nobody would want to found a country called Unland, and if the nations were more like subjects instead of members, nobody would listend to them. What a disheartening dilemma.

 

[Eg.]

Yes unfortunatly this attitude of bowing down to nothing, even though you don't belong in the affairs in the first place, is the exact attitude that continues to fuel terrorists against you. Until you and your president realise this you will be continued to be at threat from attack.

i will assume that u are not american, having said that, what if somenody tols ur nation to bow down? plenty of other nations say that without a second thought to the US, but they wouldnt take their own advice

 

[Bait]

i will assume that u are not american, having said that, what if somenody tols ur nation to bow down? plenty of other nations say that without a second thought to the US, but they wouldnt take their own advice

Bowing down doesn't seem right in this context, but reasoning with other nations sounds better. If US politicians are steadfast in keeping their eyes down a tiny stretch of road with no outside influence or comments being taken into account, that causes massive problems. i.e Iraq.

You're right. I cant wait for WWIII. We'll kick all your asses.

You say it as if it's a theoretical impossibility (WWIII that is).

 

[seinfeldrules]

You say it as if it's a theoretical impossibility (WWIII that is).

Yeah, it wont happen, but if it did we'd still kick all your asses. My boot might smell like ass afterwards, but it would be worth it.

 

[CptStern]

How do you respond to the accusations of Iran state sponsoring terrorism?

how do you respond to the accusations that the US harbours terrorists?

dont try using that tired line of reasoning

 

[seinfeldrules]

how do you respond to the accusations that the US harbours terrorists?

dont try using that tired line of reasoning

Dodging the question are we? If you cannot come up with a response I understand, but just say so instead of wasting your time typing more than you need to. I am not going to answer your question until you respond to mine. If we need to play this childish game to get results, than so be it.

 

[CptStern]

I would want the accusations substantiated before I'd commit to war. btw there's terrorism is almost every nation state ...even canada had terrorism in the 70's. Who's to say you have the right to attack a nation because of it's policies of supporting terrorism when you do the same thing?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Who's to say you have the right to attack a nation because of it's policies of supporting terrorism when you do the same thing?

I think most people would agree that harboring this man is the incorrect thing to do. I agree. I do see where the US is coming from, however. He was fighting Castro and so were we. Most people would also agree that Iran's links to terrorism are much more heinous and widespread.

 

[CptStern]

He bombed a commercial airplane with 73 people on board

he placed bombs in the Chilean, Mexican, Spanish consulates in the US. He was involved in many terrorist attacks in the US including a bazooka attack on a Polish ship in the miami harbour. Yet he was pardoned by GH Bush

 

[seinfeldrules]

He bombed a commercial airplane with 73 people on board

he placed bombs in the Chilean, Mexican, Spanish consulates in the US. He was involved in many terrorist attacks in the US including a bazooka attack on a Polish ship in the miami harbour. Yet he was pardoned by GH Bush

If you're looking for an explanation from me, you arent going to get it. I am not GH Bush, nor do I know enough about this man to either back GH's call or denounce it. From the tidbits of information you have given me I would have to denounce it, but that is an incomplete conclusion. Would you disagree that Iran has more heinous and widespread links to terrorism (HAMAS and others..)?

 

[CptStern]

If you're looking for an explanation from me, you arent going to get it. I am not GH Bush, nor do I know enough about this man to either back GH's call or denounce it. From the tidbits of information you have given me I would have to denounce it, but that is an incomplete conclusion. Would you disagree that Iran has more heinous and widespread links to terrorism (HAMAS and others..)?

unsubstantiated and no link to attacks on the US ...sure they're a fundamentalist state but that doesnt warrent military intervention

saudi arabia should be your target if you really want to stem the tide of terrorism, but it'll never happen

 

[seinfeldrules]

unsubstantiated and no link to attacks on the US ...sure they're a fundamentalist state but that doesnt warrent military intervention

saudi arabia should be your target if you really want to stem the tide of terrorism, but it'll never happen

From what is reported, Saudi Arabia is actually cutting down on terrorism. There are some undercurrents of dissent running through Washington DC about this relationship, especially during the 'beheading' incidents.

 

[Eg.]

nope, if anything SuaD Arabia is doing as little as possible. they may say they kill 14 terrorists in a raid, or they could have been drug dealers. the 9 or 7 brothers that rule the nation know that if they start fudgeing around with the t's. they ll get booted out

 

[CptStern]

I thought this was kind of appropriate