Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by OB1 KNOB

  1. Originally posted by SkinWalker

    Hussein was a tyrant and a bloody bastard who didn't need to be in charge of a country…

    …we could have used that as the reason for invasion instead of the BS about WMD and Al Qaeda and a lot of critics would have been happy.


    The point wasn’t really to get into an argument about what constitutes terrorism; I was just pointing out his many attacks against his own people. No matter how you define it, I think Saddam would still be considered to have terrorized the people of Iraq. Why? You don’t consider that a form of terrorism?


    Also, there were four reasons for the war, one of which was liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny, and yet people still protest the war. Another reason for war was to prevent Saddam from becoming a greater threat; a preemptive strike. Another was his weapons programs, which included weapons that he currently possessed, weapons that he sought after, and weapons that he was prepared to be able to construct whenever he wanted to. And I believe the fourth reason was because of the support and aid he was lending to terrorist groups.


    Here are some links providing information for why the Iraq war was legal.


    Link 1

    Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8 Link 9


    No matter what, there would be people who wouldn’t be happy. People who want to complain will find something to complain about. Regardless.




    Here’s a look into some of the atrocities of Saddam Hussein:


    Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8 Link 9 Link 10 Link 11 Link 12 Link 13 Link 14 Link 15 Link 16 Link 17 Link 18 Link 19 Link 20 Link 21 Link 22 Link 23 Link 24 Link 25 Link 26 Link 27 Link 28 Link 29 Link 30 Link 31


    I noticed some discussion that was brought up regarding issues in other countries where atrocities are being committed, and comparing the importance of those issues with Iraq. If you believe that the crimes being committed in those countries are justifiable reasons for war, then you would have to also hold Iraq to those same standards.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    I didn't insert any "assumptions," I simply called a spade a spade. The implication of the Bush administration appears to be that any Muslim upset enough with America to attack American forces in Iraq are terrorists, when, in fact, they may simply be misguided: victims or patriots seeking justice or revenge in the way that they perceive as the correct method. These people aren't exporting their violence, they're maintaining it within the borders of their country and fighting what they perceive as terrorism directed toward them. I think if the truth were known, the actual number of Al Qaeda operatives working in Iraq are low and most of the insurgency is the work of Iraqi nationalists who feel they are doing the right thing. The way to best fight them is via diplomacy: eliminate the pretexts they use for violence. Demonstrate that the injustices they perceive are far less than the good we are doing for the nation. We're doing good things in that country, we just aren't bothering to market it to the Iraqi people.


    I still think you’re reading too deeply into it by complaining about the wording that he used and any implications that might have been implied. That may be your interpretation, but it isn’t necessarily what he meant. Your perceived implication isn’t necessarily their established intention.


    I think there are a lot of Iraqi people who know the good that is being done over there. They are on the receiving end of it. They see it first hand. The rest of the people in the world are the ones that it’s not being “marketed” to. They can only get the news second hand. If they aren’t shown the truth, they won’t know it.


    I see what you’re saying about the Iraqi’s, but if the troops are not fighting against the general populace, then the Iraqi’s have no reason to fight back. I think they know that. If these Iraqi citizens are coming from areas that were loyal to Saddam before the war, then they could be Saddam loyalists who are fighting when they are given the opportunity.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    It wouldn't be a "front" in the war on terror if we hadn't gone there to begin with. Bush's deception arises there. He is attempting to convince the public that the invasion of Iraq was justified since we are on the receiving end of so many "terrorist" acts, regardless of reasons for the attacks or the chronology of the genesis of the attackers. Bush is basically lying to the American public. Also, why would you not believe that the sources of discontent I mentioned to be the most probable? If Americans were subjected to such injustices, real or perceived, violence would ensue: I point you to the Watts riots or the riots following the Rodney King verdict as example. Those examples must pale in comparison to the frustrations and hardships that the Iraqi people must be facing after a year of occupation.


    Again, I think you may be misinterpreting his intentions and presuming deceptions. If insurgents and terrorists from other places are coming into the country to fight the troops then there is a front on the war on terror. That wouldn’t be a lie. Granted some don’t want to see Iraq turned into a democracy, which becomes their motivation, but others that are terrorist groups are going to Iraq to fight would be inclined to fight against Americans anyways. It’s only the location of the fighting that is different.


    I’m reluctant to consider the sources of discontent that you mentioned the most probable, because they don’t really have motivation to fight against there liberators if the violence and aggression is not directed towards them. They are being freed from an oppressive regime, and see the good things that are being accomplished in their country amidst the fighting. I’ve heard of the growing support over there for the troops and, as a result, I’m reluctant to believe that a large portion of the populace that is not being attacked feels threatened by violence that’s not directed towards them. That seems like you are underestimating their intelligence, to distinguish between the two. I think they lived under Saddam’s oppression long enough to distinguish the difference between violence directed towards them and violence directed towards their oppressors.


    There isn’t overwhelming evidence or anything to support what you’re saying about sources of discontent. That’s more of a speculation on your part. I’m not saying that it’s impossible that some over there have responded in a manner similar to your claims, but it would be presumptuous to assume such a view was the most likely and doubt the Iraqis understanding of the intentions of their liberators.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    If that is the case, then it is a front of American design and we should acknowledge our error; admit our mistake. But to capitalize on the occurrence in order to boost approval ratings is deceptive, dishonest, and amoral.


    If the truth is that it is a front on the war on terror, he should be able to say it without it being considered a low, dishonest attempt at increasing approval ratings. If progress is being made and things are being accomplished he should be able to mention them, as should all presidents in any area of improvement.



    You accuse him of being a liar, but when you believe he’s telling the truth, you say it’s a dishonest attempt to gain support.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    The problem is that this is not where we are going to defeat Al Qaeda and reduce our terrorist threat. If anything, the threat of terrorism on our home soil has risen in light of the actions in Iraq. The bombings in Spain would support that statement. Bush's incompetence has done nothing to improve security and everything to threaten Americans. Over 838 American lives have been lost in the "war" in Iraq. That's nearly a full third of what was lost in 9/11 and we aren't even fighting against the 9/11 perpetrators.


    Effort is still going towards Al Qaeda. They are just making accomplishments in Iraq at the same time. You seem to be saying that since Al Qaeda wasn’t centered in Iraq, that it isn’t a worthwhile cause to be there. Al Qaeda is not the only threat. To only go after Al Qaeda would be narrow minded and short sighted.


    This article here mentions the war on terror’s effect on al Qaeda:

    War On Terrorism/Effects On al Qaeda


    The threat of terrorist attacks on American soil can rise simply by going after any terrorist group. Not retaliating in any way can likewise cause an increase in terrorist attacks. If the terrorists perceive no threat to themselves for their attacks then they would be more likely to consider that an open opportunity to attack more.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    I will agree, however, that the overall goal of our military servicemen is to help. But I'm not naïve enough to ignore that the Iraqi people perceive an injustice. Real or imagined, the Iraqis our soldiers are fighting are operating in the belief that we mean to do them wrong.


    While I certainly don’t approve of what was done there, everything that was done there wasn’t directed towards the innocent Iraqi populace. Also, when comparing the humiliating and degrading things done there now to captured soldiers/fighters, to the truly atrocious and malicious things Saddam spent years doing to his own innocent people they don’t quite stack up equally. Again, I’m not saying that I agree with what they did there; it seems extremely unnecessary and detrimental, but I think that there is no question as to which was the worse crime of the two.


    The Iraqis that are fighting against the soldiers would be correct in believing that the soldiers plan to do them wrong; it is war after all. However, the troops are not directing violence towards the innocent people of Iraq, those are the people that the troops are fighting for, and they have no reason to believe that there is any aggression intentionally directed towards them. They are grateful for their liberation and should recognize accidents and collateral damage for what they are: unfortunate side effects of war.


    The incidents of Al Gharaib have the potential to negate good deeds, if it isn’t made clear that that was an isolated incident. The good things that are being done elsewhere all over the country can testify to the overall good intentions, and again the innocent Iraqis are seeing it all first hand.



    I’ve said it before but I think it merits repeating, that many service men and women return from service over in Iraq and express their frustrations at the media for their negative portrayal of the war, and not reporting on all of the accomplishments.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    I think either you're attempting to distort what toms was saying or you are presenting a very ethnocentric viewpoint. Just because non-Americans hold an anti-American sentiment or have opinions that run contrary to American foreign policy, doesn't imply that they are terroristic. The perpetrators of 9/11 committed a dastardly deed to be sure, but this doesn't mean that their views, perspectives and opinions were incorrect beyond those that included terrorist acts. Terrorism is but the symptom, the root causes are what need to be addressed in order to overcome this detraction to society. As long as the current regime of the United States is in power, I fear that we continue the heightened risk of terrorist attack(s). Our foreign policies are among the causes of terrorism. This doesn't excuse terrorist acts and, indeed, those that perpetrate them or attempt to perpetrate them should be dealt with harshly. But steps need to be taken to eliminate the pretexts that terrorists use to justify their actions.


    I wasn’t implying any superiority at all. I was referring to the fact that Al Qaeda had attacked America several times before, including a previous bombing at the World Trade Center in 1993, bombings at an American embassy, etc…


    I was saying that Americans had just cause to dislike Al Qaeda prior to the events of 9/11, as they also have reason to dislike other terrorist groups as well.


    My initial response was directed towards America’s views towards other terrorists. Upon rereading toms’s post, if he was talking about America having dissenting views towards Muslims and Islam, that’s obviously a different topic. While some Americans may have adopted that perspective, it would be presumptuous to assume that the reason for going to war was based, even partially, on the nationality and religious tendencies of Iraq. Troops were also sent to Afghanistan to fight terrorism. It’s a war on terrorism, and those who support it.


    The pretexts that are used to justify attacks on America include their dislike of America’s freedoms and the freedoms and higher status of women. It’s not going to be possible to eliminate everything that they dislike about America, without America conforming to their standards for society. Diplomacy is always an option, but both sides have to be willing to cooperate in order for it to be effective. They won’t stop until everyone is totally submissive to their will. Remember that they came over to America and attacked, not because they were being oppressed unjustly, but because they dislike American society.


    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    The point is, one man's terrorist could very well be another man's freedom fighter.


    Again, whose freedoms are al Qaeda, the Saddam loyalists, the insurgents in Iraq, etc… fighting for? They certainly aren’t fighting for the freedom of their own people. They are fighting for power and control. They want societies to be submissive to them and as a result, democracy is their obvious enemy. I’m not sure who, if anyone at all, you were defending there, but the term “freedom fighter” does not apply to this situation.


    [i merely condensed the links section of the post in order to shorten the overall lenght of the thread. All links are intact -- SkinWalker[/color]

  2. Originally posted by SkinWalker

    "a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship" – The neo-conservative goal of dominating the House, Senate, Federal Judiciary, and Executive branch, doesn't smell of that? I won't pretend that the Democratic Party's goal is much different, but the Democratic Party (since FDR) hasn't demonstrated that it's policies are to limit civil rights and ignore the working class to the extent that the Republican Party has. The neo-cons have few of the traditional Republican goals like reduction of government (Reagan Conservatives were adamantly opposed to increasing the size of government), instead, their goal is power (Paul, 2003).


    A dictatorship is characterized by a central leader who has absolute power and authority, especially with a more tyrannical nature. No matter which party they belong to, both are given their position of power by the people and likewise can have it taken away. I wouldn’t consider either party fascist based on that alone.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    forcible suppression of the opposition – We see it overtly in foreign policy: strong arm tactics with the UN, authorizing torture tactics of "enemy combatants" (Gonzales, 2002), etc. But we also see it subtly in little manipulations of the press, policy, or even corporate levels: Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day. (60 Minutes, 2004)


    I would characterize fascism, as I would other forms of government including democracy, as the approach the government takes domestically. Different approaches will be used when dealing with foreign policy and other nations, which means that many different approaches will be used for many different nations.


    Forcible suppression of the opposition would include assassinating members of the other party, threatening to use force against them, etc…


    That includes a militaristic approach towards suppressing the other party and any opposition of the government.


    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    Private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control -…


    …Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.


    That isn’t really an example of the private sector being controlled by the government. The government still doesn’t own the oil companies.


    Saudi Arabia also lowered the prices during Carter’s election and Clinton’s election (both Democrats.)



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    belligerent nationalism – "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists. (Bush, 2002); and John Ashcroft (2001) citing that "those that oppose us [in creating the Patriot Act II] are providing aid and comfort to the enemy." "Aid and comfort to the enemy," coincidently, is the exact words that describe treason in the Constitution. The implication is clear: belligerent nationalism, dissent unwelcome and unpatriotic.


    Belligerent implies more of a hostile approach. While both statements are out of there intended context and therefore subject to a greater degree of interpretation, they are both definitely strongly worded statements. I think the intent there is to get people to think about whose side they are really on.


    Patriotism can easily be confused with nationalism if interpreted differently. They definitely aren’t taking a nationalistic approach to foreign policy in general. Any hostility is directed towards the terrorists themselves.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    racism – Redistricting by the Republican dominated houses and senates of the U.S. as well as states like North Carolina, Calif., and Texas, raise some serious concerns about racism (Garrett & Slover, 2004). It may be incidental and/or accidental, but the fact remains that formerly democratic districts comprised of African American and Hispanic voters are being broken up and are finding themselves with Republican majorities. The process effectively breaks up less affluent communities and gives their newly created portions to the more affluent ones. The reasons why these communities had such strong Democratic voter bases to begin with is because they lacked the infrastructures that the rich communities obtained, such as city water and sewage obtained by the Oak Cliff area of Dallas, TX in the last few decades. Now their votes will pale in significance and the affluent neighborhoods can get their diverted funds back. At least that's the perception in D/FW.


    Both parties redistrict when they are in power. It would appear to be one of the advantages of being in power. Without being familiar with the specific area, redistricting can be done for many different reasons. It would also be relevant to know how the districts became predominantly Democrat in the first place. They could originally been Republican and then redistricted to split up the Republican districts.

    Racism need not necessarily apply. Perception can be relative.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    militarism – hmmm... need I really go there?


    While the Republican Party does stand for a strong, prepared military, it hasn’t been an aggressive stance targeted towards other countries or towards the general populace of America, i.e. ruling with force and threat.


    They certainly haven’t been threatening to use the military against anyone in America who opposes the war in Iraq or even the war on terrorism for that matter.


    The central characteristic of fascism is that of having a central leader who expresses and demonstrates the viewpoints that comprise fascism, and that isn’t the case at all. It seems like quite a bit of a stretch to incorporate the American Republicans in that group.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    I was simply implying that conservatives are generally opposed to change and prefer the status quo, while liberals generally seek change for the sake of progress. I wasn't attempting to assign any right or wrong to either viewpoint. They both have their places. The neo-conservatives, however, do seek change and larger government, and I think that's important for everyone to take note of.


    I think it should also be noted that “conservative” also represents a cautious approach that’s indicative of thought and foresight.


    There is still a large stance toward decreasing governmental control within the Republican Party. Individuals who are Republicans may have differing intentions, and as such do not reflect the intentions and beliefs of others.


    There really isn’t very much to comment on there, without listing any specific examples.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    Conservative can, and is, often used in a derogatory manner, however, not nearly to the degree that liberal is. I think you'll have to agree that "damn liberal" is used with far greater frequency than "damn conservative." Moreover, there are far more compound terms in use to increase it's derogatory nature than with conservative: i.e. "bleeding heart" and "liberal media."


    I was just saying that neither term by itself is derogatory unless specifically implied in its usage. It will all depend on the specific individual using the word and how they say it. They still just represent two opposing viewpoints, similar to Republican and Democrat.


    “Liberal Media” doesn’t imply anything negative, unless someone takes offense to the word itself. If the media source has a liberal slant, that would be an accurate description. Not all media has a liberal slant obviously, but if they do they shouldn’t really be ashamed of that term.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    Pat Robertson "hand-picked more than 30 Bush campaign leaders" (Jackson, 1997) for George H. Bush. One has to assume that many of the same connections exist with the Christian Coalition in George W. Bush's administration. Indeed, many of the Bush policies appear to be direct from the Pat Robertson "handbook" (if one existed) and rest on the same superstitious belief systems and pseudoscientific decisions.


    If Bush bases policies on his religion, and Pat Robertson believes in the same religion, there policies will generally be similar, but that doesn’t mean Bush is basing any of his policies on Robertson’s opinions.


    What I was saying was: Did Bush change any of his policies specifically to get money from any of those groups? Or Did those groups donate to Bush because he represents what they also stand for?


    The former would be regarded as “being bought”. The latter would be merely a contribution.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    Likewise for his corporate connections to Haliburton, Enron, etc. Bush certainly had some harsh words to say about Kenneth Lay, but that didn't prevent him from accepting his money, advice and counsel prior to the energy companies fall from grace.


    If I’m understanding right, you’re saying that Bush shouldn’t have conferred with Kenneth Lay, from Enron, before the information about the energy company’s fallacies were discovered. Wouldn’t you expect him not to condone such as activities after proof of their existence is released.


    The large companies also conferred and donated to the Clinton Administration as well.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    What he was implying then, and what he and his administration officials implied at later dates, was that there exists a dichotomy: either you support the administration or you are a traitor; that dissent is traitorous; that by not offering logistical and military support as a nation to the Iraqi invasion, your nation supports Al Qaeda. It was deceptive. It was a lie. His loyalties aren't to the American people, they're to the corporations and organizations that keep he and his kind in power.


    It still looks more like he was talking about the war on terrorism and not his administration as a whole. People can disagree with him on his domestic policies and still support the war on terrorism because of its importance.


    What specifically do loyalties to corporations and organizations have to do with that quote? He was elected to the Presidency by the American people. They keep him in power.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    Indeed. Which is why we should have kept our focus there and not on the Iraq conflict, which is where the neo-conservatives have had their sights set even before 9/11. If we would have put the time, effort, money and political capital (which we squandered) into the terrorist question and not wasted each on the Iraqi one, we could likely have affected change in both.


    One of the reasons for the war was to prevent Saddam from becoming a greater threat.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    Diplomacy is what works in the Middle East, not strong-arm tactics. History has shown this to be true.


    Diplomacy hasn’t been working there. There doesn’t even always appear to be a lot of diplomacy between themselves. For diplomacy to work, it tends to require that both sides are willing to cooperate and, when necessary, compromise.


    The “weapons inspectors” sounds like an attempt at diplomacy, and that was going on for quite a while, because Hussein wasn’t cooperating. Diplomacy that doesn’t include consequences as a result of, or lack of, actions, won’t instill cooperation because they have no reason to cooperate. Following a lack of cooperation with forceful action is the threat that gives diplomacy validity. It did begin with diplomacy, but it ended in war.


    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    It's not necessarily the quantity of people as it is the quality of them. These 26 people appear to have had access to position and knowledge that gives their allegations and opinions credibility. Like it or not, this will probably have an affect on the public opinion if the media picks it up now that the Reagan passing is out of the news.


    I was just saying that over a time period of 20+ years, 26 people from the government and the military, and not necessarily Republican, isn’t a lot of people. That was specifically directed in response to ET Warriors statement about the quantity of the people.


    I’d have to see more information about what evidence they were basing their statements on because that article only barely mentioned where they feel the deficiencies are. Like I said, the majority of the article was establishing that some of these people served under Republican Presidents, and that doesn’t automatically make them Republicans themselves.


    Their previous and/or current status can give them credibility, but it doesn’t explicitly mean that there perceptions are entirely correct and impartial.


    What about other people in the same current or previous positions who disagree with their opinion?



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    There's plenty of evidence of voter disenfranchisement if you look. The problem is, no one wants to look or believe that this kind of thing can still go on in the United States. And I didn't even list the sources I had noticed on State Police road blocks preventing voters from getting to the polls.


    I said that I had heard the allegations but that they were just allegations. It seems to me that if there were so much evidence of disenfranchisement that there would be arrests, trials, and convictions for those responsible. Infringing on the civil right to vote is very serious and because of that I would expect to see penalties and consequences for the guilty parties.


    Lots of things get printed in the papers and told on the news, but it’s not all true. The reporters that were fired recently for making up stories are a perfect example of this. Reporters can put any kind of spin on anything they want.


    For example: I heard of an allegation that claimed a police roadblock was preventing voters from getting to the polls. The true was that there was a roadblock, and voters may not have been able to get to the polls, but the roadblock wasn’t there to prevent the voters from reaching the polls. There was a robbery that the police were handling and they had set up a roadblock to keep citizens out of harms way. By omitting the true purpose of the roadblock from the story, it takes the appearance of voter disenfranchisement.


    This story from the New York Post references recounts that took place even after the election had been decided, and they show that Bush still would have won had it been legal for the recounts to continue.


    Also, there is the issue of the military absentee ballots that weren’t counted.


    Military Votes Not Counted


    There were some delivery problems that led to the ballots not being delivered by the deadline. It should be noted that it was not the voters fault that the delivery failed to meet the deadline. There votes could have/should have been counted as well if you want to fight for all the votes to be counted.


    This would appear to be the report that you were referring to by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.


    The Report In Question


    That report was disputed as inaccurate and biased.


    Link 1


    Link 2


    Link 3-Discredits The Linked Report


    Interesting note there is that the three authors involved in the above links, one author for the first two articles, two authors for the following report, are members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and spoke out against that report as a discredit to their own organization and America.


    An investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice found no credible evidence that any one in Florida were intentionally denied the right to vote.


    Interesting also is the fact that the counties where claimed disenfranchisement occurred were Democrat controlled. Those were Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade.


    Particularly interesting is the fact that the original report recommends immediate litigation against the governor of Florida and other high ranking officials, yet no such litigation has taken place. That leads me to believe that the “evidence” they used to justify those claims was inconclusive and inaccurate.


    Unless there’s a really good reason that I’m missing for not instigating the litigation against anyone, it makes no sense to complain about it, and make no attempt to discourage such actions in future elections with deterrent penalties.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    Condeleeza Rice (03.22.04) - “the fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this [Al Qaeda] before 9/11” – yet Dr. Rice's 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush's top foreign affairs priorities fails to mention Al Qaeda; The Dept. of Justice's Seven Strategic Goals didn't include terrorism prior to 9/11; A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism. (Woodruff, 2001).


    First of all, I don’t believe that the public is always privy to everything that the current administration or the government in general, is doing. Just because it wasn’t mentioned by name, doesn’t mean that it isn’t something that they aren’t paying any attention and looking into.


    After all, telling something to the public is synonymous to telling your enemies.


    For that reason alone you cannot prove that she was lying.


    Condeleeza Rice did mention on Meet The Press, prior to 9/11, that the administration was considering Al Qaeda a priority that required attention. (I don’t have the specific date.)


    Also, the source you sited mentions that the State Department’s report didn’t mention Bin Laden extensively, which implies that he is still in there.


    Second, the State Department isn’t even part of the President’s administration. They are their own separate governmental entity.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    That there were significant ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq/Hussein – these simply did not exist beyond perhaps members of Al Qaeda traveling through Iraq. No evidence exists to suggest (Shovelan, 2004) that Hussein funded, supported, or even liked Al Qaeda.


    Bush never said that there was evidence linking Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11. He had said that there was evidence that Hussein had met with Al Qaeda. Such meetings were mentioned in an article from The New York Times, Nov. 5, 1998.



    The 9/11 Commission is supposed to search into things related to 9/11. They said that there wasn’t clear evidence linking them together for 9/11, but there is evidence that Hussein met with Al Qaeda, and that is what Bush said existed. That 9/11 Commission quote is taken out of context.


    Here are some links about Saddam’s connections to al Qaeda and some other terrorists:


    Link 1-Iraq and Al Qaeda


    Link 2


    Link 3-More Connections Between Saddam and Osama


    Link 4-Iraq Al Qaeda Link Comes In Focus


    Link 5-More Connections


    Link 6-Russia Warned US About Iraq, Putin Says


    Link 7-Salman Pak


    Link 8-The Iraq Al Qaeda Connections


    Link 9-Saddam Killed Abu Nidal Over Al Qaeda Row


    Link 10-The Clinton View of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties


    Link 11-Sabah Khodada


    Link 12-The Axis of Terror


    Link 13-Abu Nidal Organization



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    Iraq had significant quantities of WMD stockpiled. – None found. Indeed, science dictates that the "vast stockpiles" of anthrax that the Bush admin claimed were "still on the books" no longer existed, since their shelf life is approximately three years under ideal conditions. Moreover, the facility used to create the anthrax was blown up in 1996. By 2003, any stored anthrax was not viable. A similar condition existed for the VX nerve agent. Even binary weaponization of sarin has a limited shelf life. The Bush admin's pseudoscience is becoming legendary, however, when this is compared and contrasted to their stand on stem cell research, therapeutic cloning, effectiveness of condoms, and environmental issues.


    If Bush lied about that, then a lot of other people would have had to lie as well, including: President Clinton, the UN, the EU, Britain, etc…


    Congress voted on going to war twice. They must have been convinced by the evidence presented to them.


    The UN voted as well, and over 50 countries concluded that war was legitimate. That seems to be ignored in favor of the three of four that said they wouldn’t participate in the war, including Russia, Germany, and France. And even they were discovered to oppose the war because of the Oil-For-Food programs.


    Oil-For-Food Links:

    Link 1


    Link 2


    Link 3


    Link 4


    Link 5


    Link 6


    My suspicions on the WMD issue have always landed on Iraq and Hussein. If he no longer had them, why was he so uncooperative with the weapons inspectors? It would have been much more constructive and convincing to cooperate completely if he had nothing to hide.


    Besides that there is evidence about Saddam’s WMD’s.


    Link 1


    Link 2


    Link 3


    Link 4


    Link 5


    Link 6


    Link 7


    Link 8


    Link 9


    Link 10




    Of particular interest in the links above, is the fact that President Clinton considered Iraq a threat because of weapons of mass destruction and spoke on it several times.




    Information Regarding the Uranium In Africa Issue


    Link 1


    Link 2


    Link 3


    Link 4


    Link 5


    Link 6


    Link 7


    Link 8



    The following story is also a very interesting look at the Iraq WMD situation. It states what has been found, which have been mentioned in other news sources as well, and points out that everything that has been found hasn’t been of a very dramatic nature and becomes disregarded as small and insignificant, when clearly, when added together, they constitute more as a whole.


    What's Been Found of WMD So Far


    Also, from the day that it was originally declared that the US would go to Iraq, to the time that they actually did, a time period of 14 months transpired. 14 months is a long time to hide something if you know that someone is seriously coming to look for it.


    Hence the information leading to the possibility of weapons being exported from Iraq prior to, and after, the war, and hidden.


    Link 1-Weapons In Syria


    Link 2-Weapons Shipped Out Before and After War


    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." –George W. Bush, April 26, 2003 - According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Lee & Greenstein, 2003), an unspecified number of low- and middle-income families received no tax cut at all because they'd been excluded from an expansion of the child-care tax.


    First of all, you’re implying that Bush specifically knew that such exclusions would take place and then intentionally lied by saying that “everyone who pays income tax” would receive a tax reduction. If he didn’t know that such exclusions were possible, then you can’t say that he lied. That’s circumstantial.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    On Harken Oil and it's impending failure: "I absolutely had no idea and would not have sold it had I known." – SEC records demonstrate the contrary. Bush not only knew, he warned Harken board members two months prior to the sell-off (Lazarus, 2002).


    I’m not sure about what that source is. It looks like an editorial column based on the fact that the author’s last name is in the title of the article.


    That sounds like you’re talking about insider trading. If there were such conclusive evidence that he was guilty of insider trading, why wouldn’t he be in trouble?


    I heard that Bush sold, and afterwards the stock prices actually went up, which would be quite contrary to insider trading. If he knew then he could have waited to sell and made more money.



    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    One last lie that I can only offer anecdote about : Governor Bush claimed in 1997 that he had no intention of using the gubernatorial seat of Texas as a "stepping-stone" to the Whitehouse. – I actually believed him and voted for him then. I won't make that mistake again.


    To lie here, Bush would have had to have intentions to run for President, and then specifically stated otherwise. If, in 1997, he didn’t plan on running for President, then that wouldn’t be a lie. Deciding to run for President at a later date, doesn’t take away from the validity of his statement when he made it.


    He has the right to change his mind, when opportunities present themselves and situations change. You yourself have specifically defended John Kerry, and politicians in general, on “flip-flops” by stating that they can change their minds.


    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    When a scientist revises his hypothesis (his position) in light of new information, he is honored and respected. When a polititian revises his position (his hypothesis) in light of new information, he's considered a "flip-flop."


    When a scientist fails to revise in the face of evidence, he's considered a pseudoscientist. When a polititian fails to revise (remains conservative) he's considered a good polititian.


    Currently four posts up from the bottom here.


    Granted you’re talking more about policy decisions, but the core issue still applies.


    John Kerry’s “flip-flops” seem designed in telling people what they want to hear in order to gain support. It’s not really him changing his mind in light of new evidence as much as it is just that he’s trying to avoid alienating potential voters. He most likely has an opinion but just doesn’t want to take a stand with his opinion. George Bush on the other hand, has been very straight forward about where he stands on issues and hasn’t been afraid to say what he believes in, rather than do what’s popular for the sake of being popular.


    Politicians are elected to represent the people; however, they represent the group of people that was responsible for their election. A politician who only does what would be “popular” by current standards in recent polls rather than sticking to the principles that they were elected on, would become a “flip-flop” politician who is only doing what they need to in order to stay in power. And remember, what’s popular isn’t always right.


    Also, your above analogy is totally relative to the politician and the issue. Every time a politician changes their mind it is not considered a “flip-flop”. That is entirely dependant on the circumstances under which they changed their mind: why, what new information there is, etc…


    This is what I meant when I asked what you believe he lied about. With all these issues you are choosing to believe that he knew about information at the time of his statements and chose to be intentionally deceptive at the expense of the truth. There isn’t proof that he lied, but you believe that he did because it’s possible. You seem to be giving Kerry all the benefit of the doubt and Bush none.


    Your perceptions of dishonesty seemed to be based more on speculation than actual conclusive proof, and also seem to have been affected by your established personal detest of the man. You want to find things wrong with Bush to complain about to justify “firing” him. That basically goes along with the “Anybody but Bush” mentality where you wouldn’t be voting for Kerry as much as you would just be voting against Bush.


    Another interesting fact is that you want Bush fired for lying, yet Kerry has been proven a liar many times over from his claim that foreign leaders told him they want him to be elected, which was false, to lying about owning SUV’s, which he does, and many other lies mentioned in various other places.


    By your statements you want to replace one accused, speculated liar, with a proven, established liar, and you would consider that an improvement.


    It makes more sense to vote on the issues, than for the person as an individual, which becomes nothing more than a superficial popularity contest. If you vote on the issues it would be enough to say that you will vote for one candidate over the other simply for their positions. You wouldn’t need to constantly seek justification for your vote; you could just vote.

  3. I would think that the Iraqi people would still be better off now. Under Saddam's rule they had little hope, if any at all.


    With America, and their allies, fighting in Iraq, the people aren't living under Saddam's rule anymore and that, by itself, seems like a much better situation.



    About the reporters:


    I think it would still depend on the reporter. Someone who is adamantly against the war could provide negative news no matter where they are. Considering that it is harder to hear about the good news versus the bad it seems that there is a large bias against the war. (And I don’t think that is because the good news isn’t there. Like I said, I’ve read/heard about soldiers returning home who are upset about the media coverage and its negative appearance.)



    I think the possibility of anybody providing a totally impartial view is slim to none anyways. No matter where they are they still have an opinion.

  4. I was talking more specifically about the coincidence that people with the same names as convicts would primarily vote for Gore. That doesn't make any sense.


    Originally posted by toms

    Unfortunately, most black people grow up in poorer areas, are more likely to have criminal records and are more likely to have been tagged as being criminals when they infact merely shared a name.


    If they are criminals themselves, they would have lost the right to vote already. That has nothing to do with Florida.


    Are you saying that people in poor black areas are more likely to share the same name with a criminal than anyone else in any other areas?




    This seems to be kind of mute point any ways, because I don't know of any evidence suggesting that anything like that actually happened. I know there were allegations about voter disenfranchisement, but those were nothing more than allegations.


    If something had happened I'm pretty sure that it would be very well known. I don't know where you got your information, but it looks like it's mixing several different things together to make something that appears more "serious".

  5. Originally posted by toms

    Well it sure is now! but it was nothing to do with it before the US made it that way. :(


    I don't think Bush was talking in the past tense when he said that, so that means he was talking about current Iraq.



    Originally posted by toms

    Even bush is now saying that he never claimed iraq had anything to do with al quaida or 9/11... funny how he seems to have given that impressin to everyone without actually saying it. Anyone would think he was a politician :D


    Did Bush give that impression, or did the media imply that he was giving that impression?



    Originally posted by toms

    If you are going to take being nasty to whole sections of the population as terrorism, then pretty much every country in the world is guilty of it.


    Are you saying that all countries are currently doing it, or that all countries have done it at one point in history? (Just trying to clarify.) I'm not even sure if all would be an appropriate word there, but I'm not familiar with the histories of every nation that has ever existed.


    The word nasty seems like a large understatement to describe the torture and fear that the people of Iraq lived in.


    I was just pointing out the definition of the word. Are you saying that you don’t define the things that Saddam, and other nations around the world, did/do as terrorism?



    Originally posted by toms

    Saddam came to power through popular oppinion, he then used ruthless means to supress those who opposed him and to maintain his grip on power.... unfortunately that only makes him like about 60% of the worlds governments...

    (off the top of my head: russia, zimbabwe, most of africa, much of the middle east, some of south america and so on..)


    Are you saying that that is justification for what he and others have done?



    Originally posted by toms

    …there was a huge increase in anti-muslim racial crime…


    Are you talking about in America or abroad? Either way, that’s more of an extremist attitude that not everyone did/would take. Intelligent and/or logical people know that just because some terrorists happened to be Muslim, not all Muslims are terrorists.



    Originally posted by toms

    Now remember that far more iraqi civilians have been killed by the US in iraq than were killed in 9/11.


    How many Iraqi’s were killed, or even just disabled in some way, under Saddam’s rule?



    Originally posted by toms

    …Think of the effect that 9/11 had on the US population (including the many people who were related to or knew victims). They lost their sympathy for anyone who had views similar to the perpetrators, they wanted revenge,…


    …Why wouldn't the public opinion, population, relatives and leaders of iraq react in exactly the same way that those in america reacted?


    I don’t know how much sympathy people actually had for terrorists even before 9/11.


    The terrorists who attacked the US acted the way they did in contempt of America, and intentionally targeted civilians. America, and its allies, in Iraq are fighting to save the people of Iraq and are only intentionally targeting terrorists, Saddam loyalists, etc… (Basically anyone who attacks them.)


    To my understanding the people of Iraq are glad to be freed from Saddam’s oppression. That’s just not something that you’ll hear about from a news source if they are intentionally holding back that information because they want to give the war a negative outlook and appearance.

  6. Originally posted by ET Warrior

    No, that has nothing to do with anything. His post was about how they went through and disallowed anyone with the same name as a former convict to vote. It was a big deal in the news coverage of the crap happening in Florida, a LOT of people were denied the ability to vote even though they weren't actually convicted felons, they just shared a same name.


    Originally posted by Noxrepere

    I’m not sure about the accuracy of the complaint about felon name confusion, but even if that were true that wouldn’t specifically favor one candidate over another because having the same name as a felon does not immediately mean that you would vote for Gore. Also, when people register to vote, I believe they use their Social Security number to register and since that is unique for every individual, even if you did have the same name as a felon your SS would still be different. Having the exact same name as a felon seems like it would be incredibly rare anyways, and as I said, it wouldn’t favor one party over the other if people with the same name weren’t allowed to vote.


    Sorry about the quote. What I meant to say was:


    Secondly are you implying that the majority of people with the same names as convicts would vote Democrat?


    Sorry for any confusion. :(




    Would all of those people, then, not have received a sample ballot prior to the election if they had been removed from the list?


    Wouldn't that have been a problem in prior elections rather than just, coincidentally, the 2000 presidential election?


    Like I said, I'm not sure about the accuracy of that name complaint. I believe registering to vote requires more than just your name.


    Also, that seems a little odd that those 10's of thousands of people would not only happen to have the same names as convicted felons and as such, not be allowed to vote according to what you said about the names, but also, coincidentally, be predominantly black and poor, and would have voted considerably more for Gore.

  7. Originally posted by SkinWalker

    First, Bush stated "Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror."


    Second, he stated that, "the terrorists and Saddam-loyalists would rather see many Iraqis die than have any live in freedom."


    These statements presume that all bad people who happen to be Muslim are terrorists.


    The definition of terrorism as in Webster's New World Dictionary is

    1.the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such as a political weapon or policy 2.the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way.


    First of all, that sounds an awful lot like the things Saddam was doing would be considered terrorism, even if it was primarily towards his own people. So that would make Saddam loyalists terrorists as well.


    Second, in those quotes, he doesn’t mention anything about Muslims. You inserted the Muslim assumption in your statement. Someone from any religion can be a terrorist and that doesn’t necessarily reflect on their “religion” and what it stands for.


    Also, you’re arguing that since he doesn’t include all the possibilities, even the ones that are least likely or less common, he is intentionally being deceptive. If the majority of those being fought in any given location are terrorists, then that would make that location a front on the war on terror, especially if terrorists from other countries/groups are traveling to Iraq to fight the American presence. By not including a list of all the possibilities, that does not automatically mean he was implying anything that became the basis of your assumption. This seems to be more of a “nitpick” at the wording of his speech than anything that Bush has specifically done wrong. It just seems more like you’re looking for something to complain about by reading more into the wording of the speech than was necessarily meant or implied.


    Originally posted by SkinWalker

    The fact is that the "terror" in Iraq is being fed by those that want to do harm to America. Whether it's Sunnis, Al-Qaeda, or former Baathists, who initiate or incite the violence is not as significant as the fact that those who ultimately carry out the acts are cabdrivers, brothers-in-laws, and people recruited off the streets. People who are very dissatisfied with American efforts at rebuilding the country's infrastructure or mourning the loss of a child or brother or mother who happened to be collateral damage.


    Bush's "front line on the war of terror" is war against the very Iraqi people we claimed to be trying to help.


    Not everyone who losses a loved one is immediately going to turn around and fight with the opposition. That sounds like it would be more of a rare case. Also, those people who are recruited could very well have been Saddam supporters prior to losing a loved one, in which case they would have been inclined to fight against America already. Losing a loved one, perhaps, just gave them more justification and incentive to become a suicide bomber or whatever the case may be.


    Besides, under Saddam’s rule, it was very easy for people to lose someone just because they looked left or right while crossing a bridge and Saddam would have them killed. Losing a loved one in an accident is definitely a sad consequence of war, but it was an accident versus losing a loved one because of Saddam’s oppression and lack of compassion.


    You yourself stated that other terrorist groups are feeding the terror. If Iraq is becoming a conglomeration of sorts for terrorists who want to fight against the US, how does that not make Iraq the front on the war on terror?


    That doesn’t mean that terrorists and terrorism aren’t being fought elsewhere, just that there is a much larger percentage of fighting occurring in Iraq.


    America isn’t fighting against those in Iraq who are not fighting them. Those are the people that America is fighting for.

  8. First of all, it's a nation wide law in the USA that convicts can't vote. I can't remember at the moment if it's just people who have been in prison or what, but I do know that is nation wide and not just Florida, and certainly not just specific counties in Florida.


    Secondly are you implying that the majority of people with the same names as convicts would vote Democrat?


    I believe that the reason Gore kept pressing for recounts, even after some recounts had been completed, was because Bush was gaining more votes than Gore, and he wanted to keep recounting until it tipped in his favor (i.e. the “intention” of the voter on ballots that did not have a vote for president specified).


    I’m not sure about the accuracy of the complaint about felon name confusion, but even if that were true that wouldn’t specifically favor one candidate over another because having the same name as a felon does not immediately mean that you would vote for Gore. Also, when people register to vote, I believe they use their Social Security number to register and since that is unique for every individual, even if you did have the same name as a felon your SS would still be different. Having the exact same name as a felon seems like it would be incredibly rare anyways, and as I said, it wouldn’t favor one party over the other if people with the same name weren’t allowed to vote.

  9. Originally posted by Kain

    You’re joking, right? Gore wins the election, but wait, Florida, the state where Jeb Bush is governor, needs a recount. Gore wins again. NOPE!! RECOUNT!! Gore wins. Recount again. Bush wins? Wait, that doesn't make sense!


    I can't really tell what time line you're going by there but, yes, on election night, Florida was originally called for Gore. That was due to the media releasing their projected winner before the rest of the state had voted. Florida is in two time zones and therefore the west most portion of the state had not closed the polls yet. That was an irresponsibility on the media’s part.


    Even Gore himself originally called Bush and conceded that Bush won and then later called back to say that he wasn't conceding yet.


    As far as the recounts go, I can't see how anyone can see that as anything other than one sided in the manner that it was being done. Gore only wanted to recount certain counties within Florida, not the whole state, and "coincidentally" they happened to be predominantly Democratic counties. Who stands to gain more votes if they only recount in democratic counties?


    Originally Bush's people were saying that if any recount were going to take place it would be state wide, not just selected counties.


    You mention three specific recounts before saying that Bush won. If those recounts only counted more votes in Democratic counties, then Gore would gain more votes, but, again, it was hardly a formal recount.


    The justification for the whole recount thing was also based on a margin of error for the counting machines. Both Bush and Gore stood to loose votes because of a margin of error, but it's not like the machines would favor one over the other.


    I don't think the recount could have progressed without personal biases leading towards tipping the votes. There were just too many people handling them to say that no one could have changed anything on any of the ballots. The original count was done by impartial machines. Putting humans into the mix only introduced a greater chance of interference. Those who were handling the votes knew that the election was riding on Florida. It just seems too easy for temptations to set in for those directly involved in any recount.


    I fail to see how anyone can consider any part of that unfair for anyone other than Bush.




    In that article the person who objected to the report was a politician. Again that article says that the 2003 number is in question, and makes no mention of any inaccuracies for the 2001 and 2002 numbers. Seeing as how the numbers from 2001 to 2002 did go down, how is that not a victory?


    Originally posted by toms

    It is also the case that a number of people on these forums are from outside America, and bush is universally seen as an idiot (perhaps even to an unfair degree) outside of America.


    I would agree with that. Especially the "unfair degree" part. But it's not like people in other countries outside of America aren't subject to receiving biased reports by those who don't agree with Bush's politics. Challenging his intelligence makes a convenient target for them rather than just focusing on the issues.


    Both of these articles hardly appear to be evidence of any sort that give justification to wanting Bush fired or that the White house is “blowing it"


    I was merely saying that neither of these articles alone is enough evidence to warrant any justification of “firing” him. It makes much more sense to just say that you want him fired because you disagree with his politics rather than continually looking for reasons to have him fired.

  10. Originally posted by SkinWalker And "liberal" isn't a bad word... it gets used that way by the more ignorant of the conservative right (some might say fascist)


    Well Fascism, as defined in Webster's New World Dictionary is defined as:

    a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc...


    In what way is that related to the Republican Party or conservatism?




    Yes, the term "liberal" does mean open to change or progress, and conservative does mean tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any change in these.


    By your explanation though, you’re implying that not only are the conservatives opposed to all change, but also that the liberals are open to all change. That simply is not the case. The terms merely represent that, generally, the liberals are open to change in certain areas and the conservatives are opposed to change in those areas.


    Originally posted by SkinWalker So a happy median is to be a conservative democrat or a liberal republican.


    So basically that already exists. The opinions differ on both sides on what should be changed, and how, and what should be left alone.


    Also, the term “conservative” can, likewise, be thrown around in a negative light, and has even been done on this board. People from both sides can look at either word as negative or positive based on their beliefs. Some one who is liberal might not consider that word to be a derogatory representation of their beliefs and opinions.


    Originally posted by SkinWalker I for one do not agree with allowing someone that is willing to allow themselves to be bought and paid for by groups like the Christian Coalition, Religious Right, and corporations like Haliburton.


    Here you’re implying that President Bush didn’t already agree with their stances and merely changed his opinions and actions to garner their support.


    Originally posted by SkinWalker Fire the Liar.


    Specifically, what do you believe he lied about that has led you to believe that he should be fired?


    Originally posted by The_One It makes me laugh when people refer to Kerry as "the liberal from Massachusetts." By my definition, Kerry is far from being a liberal. In my book, he's pretty far to the right, maybe not as far as Bush, but a kind of "Bush lite" if you will.


    I’m not totally sure, but by your wording it sounds like your “liberal” represents America’s “conservative” and your “conservative” would likewise represent America’s “liberal”. If so, that’s another example of the interchangeability of the terms based on what both sides believe should and should not be changed.


    On the topic of “Bush Bashing”:


    Originally posted by ET Warrior Typically only because The Bush supporters come in and give excuses to try and blame away the truth.


    People in the John Kerry thread(s) come in and give excuses and reasons for his responses and actions. Why is one different from the other?




    In response to the articles:


    The first link has nothing to do with President Bush. It just says that some clerical errors were made in that report that need correcting. It should also be noted that the number that is mentioned as needing correcting in this quote:


    The April report said attacks had declined last year to 190, down from 198 in 2002 and 346 in 2001. The 2003 figure would have been the lowest level in 34 years and a 45 percent drop since 2001, Bush's first year as president.


    is the 2003 figure. I haven’t read the whole report, but from this quote there was a very noticeable and significant decline from 2001 to 2002. (Down 148 to be precise.) The purpose of that article wasn’t about any decline in terrorism. It was just reporting the clerical errors that admittedly slipped through.


    The second seems to make the assumption that because these people were appointed to high level jobs under Republican presidents that they were/are Republican themselves. A president can appoint someone that they disagree with politically, or otherwise, to a high level position simply because that person was the best for the job.


    As an example of this here is a quote from that article:


    Phyllis E. Oakley, the deputy State Department spokesman during Reagan's second term and an assistant secretary of state under Clinton


    I don’t know whether she is Republican or Democrat but she did serve under two separate presidents of opposing parties.


    Others are admittedly democrats and therefore can simply be making an attempt to make their political statement. The article only briefly mentions at the very end what they are basing their complaints on and doesn’t really site any specific examples and their ramifications and how much of an effect they really have on American security. I don’t know their reasons specifically, but I think it’s interesting that the article spent a large amount of space establishing that many of these people served under Republican presidents when a)if they are military they really didn’t have a choice and b) they could have been appointed to their position based on the merit of their qualifications.


    Originally posted by SkinWalker But if it's true, then the logical question might be, "why?" Why do so many people "bash" Bush?


    You’re implying that people who don’t agree with President Bush’s politics wouldn’t “bash” him at all without just cause. Simply disagreeing politically, or even religiously, is enough for some people to respond hostilely towards not only the President but anyone else as well. When people have differing opinions they can try and find things to complain about whether there is factual basis for it or not.


    Originally posted by SkinWalker Bush's loyalties seem to be to his supporters and pals first. In fact, he's made statements that support this notion such as, "if you're not with us, you're for the terrorists." The implications of that are pretty clear. Those critical of the Bush administration are considered enemies of the state by the admin.


    I don’t remember the context of that statement specifically, but I believe he was saying that if someone doesn’t support the war on terrorism they would be for the terrorists, wouldn’t they? Not necessarily supporting his administration, but supporting the war on terrorism, should be common ground across the party lines.


    What specific loyalties are you referencing between President Bush and his “pals”?


    Also, how does a quote about terrorism have anything to do with said “pals”?


    Originally posted by ET Warrior On topic, I think the fact that there are THAT many people that rank/ranked so highly in the American Government/military who want Bush ousted speaks volumes. I'm with Skinwalker on this


    26 isn’t really very many people when you consider how many thousands of people the government actually consists of. I’m sure there are more that don’t agree with President Bush, but signing and releasing a statement really isn’t anything special, at least given the information presented in that article. They basically appear to be 26 people saying they won’t vote for Bush.


    Originally posted by ET Warrior Fire the Liar.


    Likewise, what specifically do you believe that he lied about?


    Originally posted by Kain Gotta love it when Republicans don't like to see what their buddy Geedubya is up to.


    How are either of those articles directly related to Bush?


    Originally posted by Kain Hey, at least I wouldn't need baby brother to rob my opponent of the election.


    How was there any robbing of the election? The justices of the court were the one’s who decided the recounting, as the Democrats wanted it to be done, was unconstitutional. Not Bush’s brother. In what way do you believe that the election was robbed? (Not to get off topic or anything, but it was brought up.)




    The title of this thread is even presumptuous in saying that both these articles are absolute proof of anything.


    Even the Democrat who challenged the report said that he accepts that it was unintentional.


    "He says it wasn't politically motivated so I will accept that," Waxman said after their conversation. [With Colin Powell]


    And again, the second isn’t really proof of anything either.


    Both of these articles hardly appear to be evidence of any sort that give justification to wanting Bush fired or that the White house is “blowing it”.

  11. Originally posted by toms

    Maybe. But i would argue that anyone directly involved in a war is also unlikely to be getting the whole picture, as they will have a very limited point of view and limited interaction and impartiality. .


    I was talking more about the good things that are being accomplished over there and the direct benefits that the people of Iraq are receiving now. They can see the happiness and the hope these people have now. If that isn’t shown to anyone outside of those who see it for themselves, then they are not getting the whole picture.


    Originally posted by toms

    Every other country had impartial reporters in iraq and bagdad to give different views to the reporters they had with the troops. But checking various sources is always a good idea, as most media outlets bias their reporting one way or the other.


    I'm not sure I understand. What would make them impartial if they're not imbedded with the troops? They would still have an opinion on the war.



    Originally posted by toms

    I'm sure a lot of iraqis are pleased to be rid of saddam. But i doubt many are keen on the americans who got rid of him (maybe unfair, but that is life). Additionally, although there was some fear and torture under saddam, the vast majority of the population didn't experience it directly and so could probably ignore it. Since the war they have come into much greater contact with violence, suffering and the colapse of their ecomony and basic services. So you have replaced a small number of very unhappy people with a larger number of fairly unhappy people..


    I'm not sure about that. For example, I heard about a bridge that was in between Saddam's palace and his son's palace. When crossing this bridge, the Iraqi's weren't allowed to even look left or right, because to the left was one palace and to the right was the other. If they were caught looking either way they could be pulled aside and shot once they got to the end of the bridge. That would affect anyone and everyone who had to use that bridge.


    Originally posted by AzureAngel

    Actually from what Ive recently read alot(maybe not the majority) of Iraqis do not want us there.


    That still depends on the source and who they talked to. If they go to an area that is specifically loyal to Saddam, they could make it look like people are dissatisfied even if there are more areas that support the liberation. I don’t doubt that there are some people upset over there, but who they are and what they have to gain if the troops were to pull out becomes an important factor. If a civil war is likely if the troops pull out, why would the Iraqi’s who disliked Saddam, and are seeking freedom, want the troops to leave? I think the Saddam loyalists would have the most to gain from that situation because they would have a greater likelihood of regaining power.


    I know it was just an example, but the American Civil War was a war that Americans started. In this situation it would be a civil war that America helped start in another country and then abandon them to fight for themselves.


    I agree that it is sad when soldiers are killed, and I never thought it wasn’t. However, you’re implying that all the soldiers who have died would consider the entire war a waste of effort. If they are fighting for something they believe in, then their sacrifices are not a waste.

  12. Originally posted by Noxrepere

    With that same token imagine how much gas the commuter would save by living closer to work. You don’t hear a lot of complaints about people with long commutes using up too much gas. Only if they have a long commute and happen to own an SUV.


    I just wanted to clarify that I was not criticizing people who commute. If they want to commute it's their right as well, and their choice.


    Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

    Just so you know, if people used public transportation, pollution would be lower, diesel doesn't pollute as much as the gas we use for our cars.


    Thanks for the diesel info. I know of other vehicles that run on diesel as well, but not all gas stations have diesel pumps, so that would be a bummer for anyone to get stranded because they couldn’t find a diesel pumping gas station. :(


    I agree that public transportation can cut back on pollution. It’s just not always a reasonable choice. For example: if someone wants to shop for groceries they have to get to the bus stop and wait for the bus, then ride the bus till they get to a bus stop near the store. Then they have to shop and finish their shopping in time to catch another bus, whether it is the next one or a later bus. They would then need to wait at the bus stop for the bus with their recently purchased groceries, depending on how long it took them to shop and how much time is left until the bus arrives. Then they need to load groceries onto the bus, and ride around on the bus until the bus gets to their bus stop. After that they need to get off of the bus with their groceries and carry them home.


    That doesn’t even directly take into account that someone can only carry so many bags of groceries. They might have to make a whole day out of just making round trips to the supermarket. :eyeraise: (I don’t really know if public busses have any sort of refrigeration on them that could be used to keep frozen items cold until the passenger gets home. That was a serious question, so if someone knows, I’d like to know. :) )


    If people take the bus to and from work, they need to be there for the bus. If they have the opportunity to work overtime, for example, they would need to either catch a different bus, if there is one, or refuse the overtime.


    I’ve also known of people going to college via bus transit that would have to leave class early to catch the bus. They can miss a lot of valuable information if they aren’t there in the class, but they really need to catch that bus. Plus, sometimes college classes can run over their time schedule, which could be difficult as well. If the class is running over, it’s probably for a good reason and most students wouldn’t want to miss it.


    Fitting one’s life into the confines of a bus schedule could be extremely difficult for lots of circumstances. I’m not saying busses are bad. They just won’t work for everyone.


    Also, just because someone owns an SUV, they don’t necessarily use more gas than someone with a smaller car. The commute scenario was one example, but someone who likes driving, and owns a smaller car, and goes out driving just for the fun of it, uses gas as well. I think that they should be able to do that too, because it’s still their money and their right.


    I do think that pollution can be a problem, but getting rid of SUV’s wouldn’t solve that problem by any means. The people who would have been driving SUV’s would then drive cars that still pollute. At best, it would just be a temporary postponement and reduction of the inevitability of pollution. If the estimate of the fuel supply only lasting for around 20 years or so is correct, the world would still run out of oil no matter how it is used. It would either be a problem that the generations of today would have to deal with or the generations of tomorrow. However, I believe that such estimates have been made before that didn’t prove correct, so I don't really know how accurate that figure is as well.


    And as a quick comment on the tax discussion:


    Taxes are really another necessary evil. People don't really like having to give up their money, but it is important to pay taxes to the fund the government and the military etc... who in turn protect and serve the people. However, wasted money that leads to tax increases is unacceptable. That can become a punishment to the people who work hard to earn their money and now have to give more of it up because of wasteful spending.

  13. Originally posted by Kurgan

    Pulling out the troops means fewer sons and daughters of America have to come home in flag drapped coffins or with limbs missing. I "support our troops" but not in the way that I want them to die and die and be crippled for some far off country that doesn't want us there and doesn't show any signs of being a threat to our soil or being a cause worth dying for.


    From what I've heard the majority of Iraqis are pleased with the American presence and their help. I know someone serving over there and they have mentioned that more and more Iraqis are supporting America and very thankful for their intervention. I’ve also heard stories of soldiers who have returned from Iraq and have expressed their frustration with the negative image the American media has portrayed of the Iraq situation.


    If anybody has a right to complain about the war, I think these people do, because they are the ones who have had to make all the sacrifices to defend America, not only in Iraq but all other countries abroad as well.


    Basically, the negative Iraqi response shown on the media can be likened to the images the media showed of people in the middle-east celebrating over the destruction caused on 9/11. The media showed people dancing in the streets and celebrating but that didn’t represent the opinion of the majority of people over there. I remember seeing representatives making specific comments regarding those images and the fact that they did not reflect how everyone felt about the attacks.


    Anyone on the civilian side of the war really only gets a limited perspective of the whole picture because there is a lot of information that just can’t be shared with the public for security reasons and other information can be withheld from public release by people who don’t want their networks, for example, to become avenues for their release. That doesn’t mean that that information isn’t out there, it just means that people might need to look farther than TV news for the whole story.


    I think pulling out of Iraq at this point would be a bad idea. The Iraqi people were left relatively exposed by the US leaving in the early 90’s when the job wasn’t done. It wouldn’t be right to leave those people left open like that again.

  14. Yes, minivans offer more space than small cars, but not as much as other larger SUV's might. It's just a case of how much room someone wants/needs.


    As far as people who own SUVs without large families goes, they still made the decision to pay the extra money for their vehicle, as well as knowing ahead of time that they would be required to buy gas more frequently as well. If they bought one because it’s safer then they should be allowed to make that decision for themselves. Again, ultimately it is their choice to decide what is right for them. (And people can still use larger cars for the cargo space as well, even if they don’t need the extra space everyday.)


    It should also be noted that the term SUV is rather broad and encompasses many different sizes and variations.


    This article for example makes references to some compact and midsize SUV’s getting better gas mileage than midsize and larger Sedans.(Granted it is apparently one and a half years old.)


    When Bradsher says that SUVs use more gas than other types of vehicles, he's generally correct, although many compact, and even some midsize SUVs, can get better mileage than midsize and larger sedans.




    originally posted by ET WarriorAnd just think of how much less gas that suburban family would have used had they not been in a gas-guzzling SUV.


    I hate straying off topic like this, but it needs mentioned that we ARE going to run out of oil on this earth, and it is GOING to happen during our lifetimes. (assuming we all live another 20 or so years) So anything that can conserve what's left of our oil would be a good thing.


    With that same token imagine how much gas the commuter would save by living closer to work. You don’t hear a lot of complaints about people with long commutes using up too much gas. Only if they have a long commute and happen to own an SUV.


    As the manufacturers begin to make their SUV’s more fuel efficient they continue to not only provide the consumer with size of vehicles they want, but also help diminish the vehicle’s gas consumption.


    I do agree that pollution is a problem, but there are a lot of contributing factors. Pollution is not a problem because of SUV’s. Any fuel consuming car contributes, including busses and big diesel trucks, as well as factories and planes.


    If the estimates about the fuel supplies prove accurate, then everyone is going to be in the same boat anyways. If we are running out of fuel it’s going to run out whether people drive SUV’s or not. It’s just more incentive for them to come up with an alternative energy source. :D


    My point basically was that owning an SUV does not directly mean that you are “destroying the world” just as much as someone with a smaller car is not directly “destroying the world”. Owning a car has apparently become a necessary evil of sorts because of the distances that people are required to travel. If someone wants a small car they should be able to own one just as much as someone should be able to own a larger car of any variety, SUV or not. I think the fact is that SUV’s have proven safer in crashes and people are willing to pay extra for the vehicle itself and the gas required to keep it running for that extra security, especially among people required to spend a large portion of their time on the road. If Kerry wants to own SUV’s it’s his American right. I don’t think owning an SUV is directly related to hating the environment just as much as owning any other vehicle is not related. If Kerry feels ashamed or guilty about owning them, why does he own them? And why be deceptive about them?

  15. Originally posted by toms

    Kerry supports increasing the US tax of gas? Well good for him.


    Petrol in the Uk is about 83 - 99p per litre. Spain about 50p, etc..

    In the US it is 26p per litre.


    No wonder they all drive huge, pointless, SUVs that kill people and have terrible MPGs. Maybe higher taxes or higher gas prices might convince US consumers to drive SENSIBLE cars, or at least convince manufacturers to improve their efficiency!


    So you're saying that rather than have prices lowered in other countries, the prices in the US should go up just so everyone can share the misery of high gas prices?


    I don't want to get too off topic, but it was mentioned... (It will tie in at the end, so I hope it's okay.)


    On the topic of SUV's ultimately I think it is the driver in the car who is responsible for accidents in many situations. A bad driver in a small car is likely to injure and kill people, along with themselves, in the event of a crash with another small vehicle. A bad driver in an SUV is likely to injure and kill people in another vehicle in the event of a crash as well A bad driver in an SUV that crashes into another SUV can injure and kill in that situation as well, but both parties may ultimately be safer. Basically driving any car, or even riding in a car, can put your life in danger, but so do many other events including natural disasters. You simply can't protect everyone from everything and sometimes it's just a matter of personal responsibility.


    I believe it can be safer to drive larger vehicles for the drivers and passengers in those vehicles, but there are a lot of contributing factors involved; including speed at impact, point of impact, etc... One main factor involved is seatbelts. Anyone not wearing a seatbelt in any vehicle increases their chances of sustaining injuries or being killed in the event of any crash.


    With SUV's, rollovers are commonly mentioned as a cause of death and injury.

    In the real world, rollover crashes are relatively rare. But when they do happen, they are more likely to be deadly and they are much more likely to happen in an SUV.

    In a speech Tuesday, Runge cited statistics that, while rollover accidents accounted for just 3 percent of all U.S. auto accidents in 2001, they caused nearly a third of all vehicle-occupant fatalities.

    But also:

    Simply wearing seat belts would help protect occupants in SUVs. In a September speech to the Association for Automotive Medicine, Runge pointed out that most rollover deaths in SUVs occur when people are ejected from the vehicle, something which is much less likely to occur with seatbelts buckled.


    These quotes were taken from this page.


    Other articles,some pro some con, can be found here.


    I think seatbelts play an incredibly important role in any accident. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any info/statistics regarding deaths in accidents as a result of not wearing seatbelts. To me that is a very vital piece of information that could easily change the outlook of all automobile related fatalities as in the example above. (Note: Those statistics may be out there. I'm just saying that in my quick search the articles mention deaths related to SUV's but not always whether those in the SUV's were wearing seatbelts or whether the passengers of the other cars involved were wearing seatbelts as well. I just feel that it is an important piece of information.)


    I do admit that there are pros and cons to owning an SUV, but there are also pros and cons to all other types of cars as well. Ultimately it is the buyer's decision to choose what they want.


    The reference to SUV's being "pointless" is really entirely relative. For a large family a large car is necessary...end of story. Having siblings myself, sitting in a small car bumping elbows with squabbling siblings is a great way to ruin any trip from something as short as a trip to the store to vacations where hours are spent on the road traveling to the destination.


    Storage also comes into play as well. With larger families comes the need for a greater capacity for storage. This is also another good way to ruin a trip by spending it with your knees in your face because the floor space in a small car had to be filled with luggage or any other items. (I would imagine that that is also a safety hazard of sorts since your legs aren't where they are supposed to be. :))


    The low MPG's of SUV's was also mentioned. That brings up another interesting point about gas consumption. Many people commute to work, and depending on the area a commute can be well over 100 miles both ways. Now if someone making that commute is driving a smaller fuel efficient car, they use less gas per mile but a large quantity of gas in total for over 200 miles of travel per work day. As a second half of that analogy a parent in the suburbs could own an SUV that they use to drive kids to school, run errands etc... and only drive 50 miles on any given day for example. In such a situation the SUV would actually be using less gas than the smaller car.


    Should laws be placed on commuters about how far they can commute, or should they be able to decide how far they would like to commute?


    I think likewise people should be able to decide what type of vehicle they drive. SUV's admittedly come with the disadvantage of requiring more gas but the driver purchases the vehicle knowing that ahead of time.


    I believe I also read something somewhere in one of the articles linked above about manufacturers working towards making larger cars more fuel efficient. (or it may have been somewhere else. I can't remember. :( )


    Also, I should mention that I am by no means an expert on automobiles. These are just observations and conclusions that I've arrived at and the provided links may not be the best ones, but studies and statistics in general are always subject to reflecting personal biases and opinions, such as the absence of seatbelt statistics to reflect a larger number of deaths of which many may have been preventable. I only provided the links as a means of example, since a lot of the information that I receive isn't directly related to the internet.


    And to get back on topic:


    There is also the issue of Kerry owning SUV's.


    This specific site has quotes from news stories and links to those quotes about Kerry's SUV's and gas tax stance. It's currently right at the top of the page.


    John Kerry SUV's


    This site seems to be someone who supports Kerry but also lists his differing stances. I'm not really sure since I didn't really look at the entire site, but the quotes are also linked to their respective news sources, including johnkerry.com and cnn.com, and also include links to other sites and articles that support Kerry.


    I heard about the SUV thing elsewhere but wanted to post related links. So there is the site above but here's a link to a Google search so you can read from a news source of your choosing. :)


    Google Search For Kerry SUV


    For me personally, I don't really care if he has an SUV, or more than one SUV. As I stated above, I think SUV's are a legitimate vehicle choice for anyone who wants one, and smaller cars are legitimate choices as well.


    For me the whole SUV story, as well as others, brings up an issue of trust. If he feels comfortable being deceptive about what vehicles he owns, how can he be expected to tell the truth the rest of the time about things of greater importance?


    I don't really agree with him politically anyways, but regardless of your political affiliations, issues such as this, and others mentioned above in previous posts, should raise a concern about his reliability.


    EDIT: I just fixed a punctuation error that was bothering me. :)

  16. I don't know if it's a problem in JA or not, but when Azymn tried increasing the model icon limit in JO for ForceMod II it caused problems elsewhere in the game.


    I'm not sure what they were because that was never in the public release, as he had already removed it because of said problems.


    Any way's, I don't know if it will be the same or not here, but it would be great if it could be increased. It's not a huge deal but more of an inconvenience to use the console to change models. :)

  17. Originally posted by RJW_ca

    No, sorry he does not have OJP/Keshire weapon tags for holstering the saber


    --- it would be great if I could make use of this OJP/Keshire weapon tags compliment.


    for the hand colour yes there is a bit of a colour difference but this colour difference is no hard task to alter


    -- I am changing the hand colour right now.


    I thank you for your perspective








    The OJP tags are really easy to add. I don't know if you know where they are, but the info can be found in this thread:



    On the repository it's under animation I believe. Any way, it's just a matter of merging the tags from the Kyle model to your model(s) and positioning the tags so they look good. (You don't even have to use them all, so if you want just the saber hilts you can ignore the blaster/launcher/etc... tags and just use the three saber hilt ones.)


    You could also make your own if you wanted, but this might be faster.

  18. I haven't had a chance to check out the new Beta yet, but I will shortly, so this may already be answered/corrected.


    The stock JA bots don't seem to stick around and fight when it comes to saber combat. Most of the time. They make a few attacks as they run by, but follow their bot routes more than they fight. (Same goes for guns as well, but it stands out more when they have melee weapons.)


    It might not be a good idea to have them always stay and fight, because that's not always the best strategy. Possibly seeking out the leaders of the match would be a good strategy (depending on the gametype), but it wouldn't be fun if the bots could just pinpoint the leader's location through the code, since that would be doing something humans can't. If they actually have to look that would be better.


    It's just odd to have to spend your time trying to catch up to the bot because he's running away and ignoring you.

  19. As far as the acrobatic moves, it would be neat to see the bots use them, but definately with a "few and far between" mentality. It's no fun fighting bots that are going to jump, jump, jump. Same goes with kata's. Maybe using the kata's when an opponent is left wide open.


    A little method to there madness would go a long way towards improving there performances.

  • Create New...