Originally posted by KharmaDog
LOL 😆By the way, as of January 11, 2005 you were listed as under "Elevated" alert status and nothing has changed. So you are at a "significant risk of terrorist attack"
Didn't we just spend the better part of a year at a high risk of terrorist attacks?
I dont' recall our status going down to the blue since the creation of the colored system. And YES, Americans find the systems just as laughable as other countries.
Originally posted by Linkalicious
What's funny is.....we found the former leader of Iraq in a 8x6 hole in the ground...sh!tting in a bucket.but then again, i hear caves in Afgahnistan come equipped with cable and high speed internet connections.
bush: as we speak, osama bin laden is facing justice for his crimes. we are now taking steps to deprive him of plumbing and we took away his cable.😂
Nice references up there Kharm. I actually thought you were going to provide something from an international source that wasn't on "American Media" but the point is well proven.
What I was kind of hoping for was a country to declare America wrong in assuming Iraq wrong.
Most of those weapons inspectors, Hans Blinx included, made their reports out to seem like "well I looked, but I didn't find anything....your turn"
I wish Hans'y would have put his foot down on the matter and said that without a doubt...there are no weapons in Iraq.
When America went to war, I kinda got the rift that it was like "ok...now it's our turn to look around"
No, cruel and unusual punishment would be the closing of all Starbucks in Afghanistan
And yah I get your point, but I question the amount of freedom Osama truly has. He is getting some attention, but not nearly the attention that he should receieve.
It really doesn't matter that much anyway. People make it seem like terrorism is going to stop once/if Osama gets caught. If he gets caught there will be 5 more to replace him.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Echuu, do you really think that Clinton was doing nothing about terrorism? Each incident that you talked about recieved a military response. And the website you provided is full of conservative propaganda and misrepresentation of facts.A month before Clinton left office his administratin was praised for his counter terrorism efforts. Robert Oakley told the Washington Post, "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama". Paul Bremer told the post he believed that the Clintion Admin had "correctly focused on Bin Laden".
Clinton also tripled the counter-terrorism budget for the FBI, created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines, rolled up Al Queda cells in 20 different countries, and his first and second crime bills contained stringent anti-terrorism legislation.
Clinton left offivce giving more priority to terrorism than any president before him. Barton Gellman did a four part series for the Washington post that stated that Clinton's admin "was the first to undertake such a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
Upon entry into the whitehouse the bush admin did not adopt the same stance toward terrorism as the clinton administration and look what happened.
Clinton was smart enough to know that you don't fight terrorism on the front pages of the newspapers. Whereas Bush makes sure to use the fear of terrorism to his advantage.
Echuu, before you post a statement as misinformed and lame as the one above, at least do some research, and research on a conservative blog does not count.
Well then sir, could you please direct me to a site that has the correct facts and is completely unbiased; as in no liberal bias also?
Yes Clinton was praised by the liberal media. But, Clinton himself said that his "biggest mistake" in his presidency was refusing to accept an offer from foreign governments(which he refused 3 times) to get him Binladen. This was also a Washington Post source so I hope it's not misinformation of the facts.
Yes Clinton upped the budget and created programs to keep america safe. Most of the hijackers of 9/11 were stopped in the lines in the airport for some suspicion but they had hardly any proof to arrest those people. Dubya implemented the patriot act so they could be arrested under the slightest suspicions of terrorism. That's why we don't see news clips of the Brooklyn bridge being destoyed right now.
It wasn't on the front pages cuz clinton didnt make a big deal about the problems.
Kharma Dog I would like it if you would respect my opinions even if they may or way not be true. I respect yours so please do the same.
I just get sick of threads that are so devoted to bashing bush and demeaning him and calling him stupid. I think we should all try to debate things with a little less hatred.
Well then sir, could you please direct me to a site that has the correct facts and is completely unbiased; as in no liberal bias also?
Ok. first hint, any site that bills itself as a "CONSERVATIVE NEWS INDEPENDENT" or a liberal one for that matter would be a start. I was going to list some papers and sources, but that would serve no purpose. If you actually want to learn something, seek out that info for yourself, don't depend on others to tell you how to do it.
Dubya implemented the patriot act so they could be arrested under the slightest suspicions of terrorism. That's why we don't see news clips of the Brooklyn bridge being destoyed right now.
The Patriot act is a pretty scary piece of legislation and I invite youto read it indepth. And the patriot act is not why you haven't seen the Brooklyn Bridge being destroyed. Generally terrorists go after targets with meaning (i.e. world trade centre = financial, pentagon = military, embassies etc.) The patriot act does not aid the fight in terrorism all that much (imho) If anything the war on terrorism has been extended by Dubya's war in Iraq.
Kharma Dog I would like it if you would respect my opinions even if they may or way not be true. I respect yours so please do the same.
I will respect a well informed opinion, but I cannot respect an opinion if "may not be true". To ask me to respect an opinion that is based on an untruth is insane.
I think we should all try to debate things with a little less hatred.
I don't think I displayed any hatred whatsoever. That is a very strong word you are using there.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Ok. first hint, any site that bills itself as a "CONSERVATIVE NEWS INDEPENDENT" or a liberal one for that matter would be a start. I was going to list some papers and sources, but that would serve no purpose. If you actually want to learn something, seek out that info for yourself, don't depend on others to tell you how to do it.The Patriot act is a pretty scary piece of legislation and I invite youto read it indepth. And the patriot act is not why you haven't seen the Brooklyn Bridge being destroyed. Generally terrorists go after targets with meaning (i.e. world trade centre = financial, pentagon = military, embassies etc.) The patriot act does not aid the fight in terrorism all that much (imho) If anything the war on terrorism has been extended by Dubya's war in Iraq.
I will respect a well informed opinion, but I cannot respect an opinion if "may not be true". To ask me to respect an opinion that is based on an untruth is insane.
I don't think I displayed any hatred whatsoever. That is a very strong word you are using there.
Well thanks a lot. You have done a great job of being a typical lib and treating me like I am an imbecil. I have searched for my own information, but I was looking to you, since you seem to know so much, to enlighten me as to why any of my sources are wrong. Your information is most likely just as biased as mine so how can anything be trusted.
Also, it appears that you shouldn't be respecting any opinion at all because any opinion may or may not be true. Just because you say something is a truth doesn't make it that.
I dont' think that you necessarily were being hateful. What I mean is that many threads started in this forum are hateful and some people and things that are posted.
Well thanks a lot. You have done a great job of being a typical lib and treating me like I am an imbecil. I have searched for my own information, but I was looking to you, since you seem to know so much, to enlighten me as to why any of my sources are wrong. Your information is most likely just as biased as mine so how can anything be trusted.
Actually I am not a liberal, I consider myself an independant thinker and really don't tote a party line. And I did not treat you like an imbecile, if you feel that way that is totally your own issue not mine. I mentioned that your sources were wrong because they were found on a conservative propaganda website, surely you can see this.
As for finding information on your own, I encourage you to search using google and nexis. Once you have information, see who wrote it, why they wrote it and if they had a political agenda behind writing it. There are many good news sources and reporters out there. Once you find a fact check it, if it's a fact, there is no bias.
Also, it appears that you shouldn't be respecting any opinion at all because any opinion may or may not be true. Just because you say something is a truth doesn't make it that.
Correct, me saying something is true doesn't make it so, it being a fact makes it so. If you have an opinion, even if it differs than mine, and it's based on your examining of the facts, then I will indeed respect you.
I still have not seen at any point, ever, any reason which backs the asserion that oil was the reason the US went to war that actually stands up to any close or knowledgeable examination; it is a reason mostly used by people who have nothing more than a casual grasp of the facts,
Memories are also short. Other countries did NOT diebelieve that WMDs were in Iraq. The UN specifically believed that they WERE. Russian and France specifically said before the war that it would make no difference to their positions if the US invaded and found WMDs, because the presence or otherwise of them was not the grounds upon which they were objecting. People trying to make out that everyone else told the US they were not there are either lying or totally misguided and history will judge them idiots.
Intelligence agencies differed on the threat posed by, not the presence of, WMDs.
I still have not seen at any point, ever, any reason which backs the asserion that oil was the reason the US went to war that actually stands up to any close or knowledgeable examination; it is a reason mostly used by people who have nothing more than a casual grasp of the facts,
That is your opinion, many knowledgeable people believe otherwise, and many of these people actually have more than a casual grasp on the facts.
Memories are also short. Other countries did NOT diebelieve that WMDs were in Iraq. The UN specifically believed that they WERE. Russian and France specifically said before the war that it would make no difference to their positions if the US invaded and found WMDs, because the presence or otherwise of them was not the grounds upon which they were objecting. People trying to make out that everyone else told the US they were not there are either lying or totally misguided and history will judge them idiots.
Many countries did believe that Iraq posed no threat regarding WMD's. And what was in dispute was the intelligence that the U.S. using as proof and their intentions.
However, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) did declared Iraq free of nuclear weapons on Oct 8, 1997, years later Colin Powell stated that Iraq has shown no ability to reinstate their nuclear program.
Nuclear weapons were not the issue- but no major power seriously disuputed that Iraq had an WMD capacity.
And I am sorry- bit all the people I have seen saying the first about the oil have only ever struck me as showing considerable ignorance. it is a line being unthinkingly followed by people determined to criticise, without knowledge of the facts involved.
And I am sorry- bit all the people I have seen saying the first about the oil have only ever struck me as showing considerable ignorance. it is a line being unthinkingly followed by people determined to criticise, without knowledge of the facts involved.
Well I guess we have to disagree on that, although I will agree that many people run to that banner without knowing remotely what of they speak.
I do believe that this was a war based on economics more so than the threat that Iraq posed to the U.S.A. I guess by your earlier statement you consider me "considerably ignorant" with "no more than a casual grasp of the facts", but that's just your opinion, and I have no problem dealing with that.