Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

New orlean has not gotin the promisted funnded needed for reconstrution that where promisted.

New orleens is not minchoned muuch by the goverment.

why do you think this is?

emw...you are starting one more thread that will cos troubles again. ppl should vote but NOT write down any statements in here. it´s enough to vote, that means more then 1000 words.

no ,.  people need to explain why they voted

i'm not sure, mainly because i don't really watch the news anymore.

ok to explain why i voted maybe, im in England & the main news at the moment here is about that fire & the execution of that ex gang leader. so we around here probably wont hear too much about new orleans anyway.

its not the thread that cosis trubal its pepal how coss trubal.

I think new orleans mostly just dreopped out of sight from the media with this secret CIA prison thing

more that we are not flowing through on what we sed we would do for those pore pepal in new orleans.

nuthing realy can be dun untill thare is fundding is sent.

huh? i realy cant understand you srry

one of the few self self sustaining nacher parks in the usa will have to close unless thay dont get funneding soon.

by not givin the munny that was promisted helps no one.

Ok, I think a Mod needs to come and close this, quick, people are always blaming the tragedy that happened in new orleans on the president and D.C. government, when it was actually the New Orleans mayor who waited to long to evacuate everyone...No one is happy about what happened there, that's why the world sent their support, it's not something we should be blaming people for, it's something we should be pouring money into helping, it was a disaster to a beautiful city. We have not forgotton New Orleans, however it is no longer breaking news, as such, CNN isn't displaying it anymore.

Get all the facts. :hmmm:


Oh please, that's about as foolish as saying "Guns don't kill people, People kill people." It's crap, people aren't firing powerful metal projectiles at each other at high velocity for the simple purpose of killing. One might say "But a person has to aim and pull the trigger" Yes, it's a logical circle, however it's still not a human being firing the projectile, it is the gun...Threads can cause trouble, like people can cause trouble, it's called a "Troll" ewm, it's against the rules in most forums, a Troll is a thread/post simply designed to cause problems/conflict, so that by the rules, the site admins will have to ban everyone envolved in the resulting flame war, to be fair :hmmm:

yay lets all take a stroll down off-topic road

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are tools. Made by humans, for humans, to simplify human tasks, ie killing people. It is a mechanical instrument that uses mechanical advantage to do something a human by itself cannot. When a group of contractors build a house, you don't say hammers and drills made the house, you say contractors built the house. When your sibling is killed by extremists, you don't say "my brother was killed by an UZI", you say "my brother was killed by ^&*^&*^ people". :D

that being said, new orleans has been forgotten. kinda like how osama bin laden silently dissappeared from the media. oh sure theres large amounts of people working to reconstruct, it just isn't getting spammed by fox or CNN.

uhm, no, if my brother was shot, i'd say "my brother was shot" not "some terrorist shot my brother" And it wasn't off-topic, read the above statement before my Gun don't kill people people kill people paragraph.

Mmm really, except thats not what the media does, nor its not what anyone I know does. Bear in mind, i know everyone on earth, i have all of their phone numbers. and yes it is off topic, since the topic is abandoning new orleans, and guns does not involve that. :D

*sigh* i'm too tired to argue, *goes back to chatting on IRC*

yay, go slip into your fantasy world where anyone who disagrees with you you can just /silence or /kick. :ph34r:

its a shame how its going with new orleans, you'd think something this big would still matter

Lmao, my fanasty world? probably doesn't have anything to do with me talking to a good friend on there? :P and I don't "/silence or /kick" people who disagree with me, because I don't think i'm always right. :hmmm:

at least new orleans isnt forgotten here, thats something. anyone an engineer here? lol

ewm why are you doing this? you know what the outcome is. lets see what is more forgotten then.... uhmm the bird flue in china, the benzene leak in china in the river or lets talk about those millions of pakistanies that freeze to death because of the earthquake or the millions of people in sudan, etheopia that are starving for hunger or the people from the tsunami

ewm we know your oppion about new orleans we gave ours in another thread.  apparently you can't let go of it possibly because you haven't taken action yourself to solve the whole problem or you think it is x-mas time and you need to show once a year that you have a heart aswell or you wanted another threads thats gets to be spammed and closed. don't start those topics. you prolly be offended and think we are childish and can't handle the topic but you are very selective in your reading in this and continue telling people how you see your perfect world and all have to drive that toyota hybrids that you don't even have or can afford.

so let me say. optic will close this threat later on  and will say: bad puppy don't bark like that

 

lol you reminded me about that benzene leak, wonder how thats going, it was supposed to go to russia

benzene leak? i barely remember that.

i suppose new orleans isn't forgotten, it's just the news media feels it's gotten enough air time (or rather i assume that).

Are you SERIOUS? This makes like the 7th topic.

i thought this little thread was about the news media not covering new orleans anymore. well, i can't really say because i don't watch the news, but from what everyone is saying i assumed that they had stopped covering it. what's wrong with that?

nothing

the maror Ray Nagin and Governor Blanco  asked the presadent for help thats all he cood have dun.

the maror can not call in in gard for relife thats the presadents job and fema wich the preasent scowed up.

do to the lack of comunication out lined in the 911 comintons report the presadent had never fixed made it very difaclt to get things dun.

It funny how the preadent vistit the new orleens and the releef ariving at the same time is more than a quisadens, it took 5 days 5 days to long.

evin the presadent admits he hed make a huge mistake and his respose was very pore.

the quetion is not hows folt it is. the quetion now is what is comeing next funnding or no funnding?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the problom with stoping new reports means thare is much less presher on the pepal respoabule with makeing sher new orleans get rebilt to folow thow.

The last I heard about funding is the president was taking funding for new Orleans on the spending bills or renewing the patriot act drilling anwar or other unpleasant bill as a incentive to get them pasted.

I hear he is all so doing the same thing with the john mican torchor anti bill tiring to use it as a incentive to get even more disturbing bills pasted.

____________________________________________________________________

Side note: if you dont like this sugect dont vowe it. opect has sed this topic is ok very cleerly.

pleace dont spame this topic like the last one.

Ban Polatics - thread.
Posted on Oct 22 2005, 12:59 PM
politics won't be banned from this forum just becouse a few of you are not able to handle with each other. pls try to discuss in clean and friendly ways and only where a discussion is wanted. We want a friendly and open community, there is already to much agression out there in the net  
Peace!

Greetings,
the flower child,
Optec


lets keep this frindly.

arghhh you are missing the point ewm  :omg:  :omg:  :omg:  :omg:  :omg:  :omg:  :omg:  never mind i am out of here

i have anser this 3 time be for [TD]Roach in uther tread i tolk about it be cuss its inportent and i wont to tolk about.

my goverment in in pustion to do real meanfull help to uther contrey i wont that to cosintrate on thare own contry be for helping uthers.

if pepal spamm it thay are braking the rules of the forum and will be delt with by the moitors.

if you have eny uther consers pleace pm me and dont get this topic to off track thanks.

___________________________________________________________

the maror Ray Nagin and Governor Blanco asked the presadent for help thats all he cood have dun.

the maror can not call in in gard for relife thats the presadents job and fema wich the preasent scowed up.

do to the lack of comunication out lined in the 911 comintons report the presadent had never fixed made it very difaclt to get things dun.

It funny how the preadent vistit the new orleens and the releef ariving at the same time is more than a quisadens, it took 5 days 5 days to long.

evin the presadent admits he hed make a huge mistake and his respose was very pore.

the quetion is not hows folt it is. the quetion now is what is comeing next funnding or no funnding?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the problom with stoping new reports means thare is much less presher on the pepal respoabule with makeing sher new orleans get rebilt to folow thow.

The last I heard about funding is the president was taking funding for new Orleans on the spending bills or renewing the patriot act drilling anwar or other unpleasant bill as a incentive to get them pasted.

I hear he is all so doing the same thing with the john mican anti torchor bill tiring to use it as a incentive to get even more disturbing bills pasted.

quick question Ewm in what three years you have been on this board almost as long as me how come you have never learnt to spell at all?

Bottom lines are: The mayor was to busy complaning about "his citicens deserved better.  Quote/unquote "NO!, the people of New
Orleans deserve better than school buses!  no young sir.  what they deserve is to be getting the frak away from the hurricane.  you were to busy to care about that.  comfot HA!.  and dont even get me started on the Governer.  She was a fraking idiot!  make a decisive decision already lady!  she didnt order manditory evacuation until the day before the hurricane hit.  then she blames it on the leveys.  you bought level 3 levys they stand up to level 3 hurricanes.  She should be impeached.  it is NOT the fedral governments fault that the never asked or  they refused help!

well to get pepal out of the way of the herican you whood need bush drivers most buss drivers had let new orleans. so yes thare wher buss but no one to drive tham.

how can some one how has not crontrole when evry thing is going rong be to blam? she and the mayer did what thay need to do out liyed by ther job description.

agin she and the mayer wher not abule to get to gether the reiver that whood be needed for an evacation.

maror Ray Nagin and Governor Blanco aked the govermet for help and did not get much.

4 of 11
i have diyslexia and the way my diyslexia works make it very hard for me.

You’re dyslexic? So am I, it’s just for me it was caught early, and intensive training helped me cope a great deal.  

i was cot early to and had the traing just was never abule to compinsate.

____________________________________________________________

finaly  lital bit of good news a  lital bit of munny is trickaling in to new orleans its for the levays not the pepal tho. the levays will only be upgrated to leaval 3 not upgrated to a leval 5 with thay shood be thes days leval 5 or more comin. the levays may take 2-3 years to finesh tho.

2 - 3 years :huh: ,
well i suppose its not that long

I AM SO ******* SICK OF MY CURRENT GOVERMET!!!!

i was coming home just now and a katreana victom was beging me for munny claming thay can buy food. than a nuther homless guy was being me for munny i had givin what i had had to the katreana and cood not help the homeless man.

bush has stoped help for the homless food stamps and uther well fare programs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

uh hu uh hu... yea.  i personaly think(please dont critisiseme too harsh  that new rleans wasnothing but criminalsand convict.  i live in SA and some katrina "victim" one stole my wallet!

thay need munny if you where stroving and tring to find a plaese to live. you cant tell me the thot of steeling whood not come across your hed.  

there were many relief efforts- i heard an nprstory about how tey ave like 400 homes with free food and lease for a year in colorado and no one goes!  they arent very smart they think it arctic temperatures year round!

why don't u go down the new orleans and help em out ewm? and why is dyslexia so hard to spell? the very term 'dyslexia' is a p i s s take on you dyslexics hehe same goes for lisp - there's a S in it for gods sake! i live in wales so the new orleans thing hasnt been on the news since, we got our own problems. anyway i dont really understand what u mean by new orleans being forgotten, is it cos u aint seen anything on the news about it or is the US goverment not even rebuilding the place yet? that maybe due to think tanks or whatnot developing techniques to stop the flood controls bursting again and cos new orleans is built below sea level a lot of work has to be done to at least try and minimise the damage in future as lets face it - america is hurricane prone

because he's a hippocritical, neo nazi, "intelectual", ugly, rich *******,
i mean democrat

lmao!

i take it you agree then frodo

i think *** is a plonker but he's entitled to his 'opinion' lol  :hmmm:  

I agree even if it is his communist ideals

i dare ask him whether he thinks saddam's trail is fair

LOL i think he has a saddam shrine in his room.  check out my funny videos theres one in there called bomb saddam!

nun of thay have eny wher need a nuff munny to do eny real good. thay mite have a feew mill but thay need hundreds of billends. bus has givin that 60+ bill but its to early it whood have not filtered down yet.

stop moaning then! give it time to filter through and have effect u muppet! u just kicked urself in the face then! mein gott in hemmel!

i have a life i cant droop evry thing i have my own probloms its the governets job thats why we have a goverment to run the cruntry and devert resores whare thay are needed thay are not doing it fast anuff.

fair enough

so do we we have jobs/school so we dont need money because we work

jobs are being cut in the usa do to a pore economy. the katreena refuge that aked me for help was in a weel chare thare mite not be a good for him right now to play for him to live in dc.

school cost munny thay dont have.

do to pore egucation on laweseana and new orleans thare are limated jobs for pepal with pore egucation.

because those stinking illegal aliens snatch em up!

its not the illegal aliens thay are ting to servive like evry one elss it is bad govering that have cosed this.

i hope when new orleans is rebilt it is rebilt in a way that will make a beter systom.

egication has ben so bad in that area that when katreena kids wher relocated to husatn mass fite brock out. be cuss the lwesana kids wher so far be hind the kids in hustin texis thay started making probloms to compin sate.

New Orleans does need help, but its a big world.  What about the Tsunami victims?  They still need aid desperatly.  What about the earthquake victims?  They need 100 times more help than New Orleans.  What about the genocide in Sudan?  Are we to sit back and do NOTHING?  What of the oppresion in China?  In Iran?  In North Korea?  Should we ignore their plights?  Have we realy sunk that low?  Yes, New Orleans will need help, and is being helped through the tireless work of faith-based relief agencies, but lets face the facts: millions, no, billions need help much more than New Orleans.

*Also, forget the Mexico border, the terrorists are too smart to try that.  If they sneak in to the US, they would come through Canada.  There are many reasons for this.
1. Weak border checkpoints
Canadian mounties working checkpoints arnt even alowed to carry firearms
2. Friendly attitudes
Canada really couldnt care less if terrorists live inside there borders.  After all, their after US blood, not Canadian.
3. Poor policing
Because of point #2, canada mostly works on a capture-and-release bassis on terror suspects
4. Wellfare
The manuals handed out to terrorists charged with establishing new cells have very specific instructions, and one of the first is to get everyone in the cell on wellfare, so they dont have to work and can spend their whole day planning for terrorist actions.  Canada has one of the most generous wellfare systems in the world, whereas Mexico has no wellfare system at all.

Oh, and did I say MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

ps I HATE POLITICAL THREADS

oh, i just like to argue. it's in my blood.

fath bast groops can help like 10% if that of what needs to be dun the uther 90% needs help two.

thare are uther pepal how need help two yes thats truwe but this thread is about New Orlean Reconstruction not the Tsunami victims thats for a nuther thead.

a hint dont post on tham and thay will disaper so you wont have to hate tham.

Exactly.  I'm questioning the tread's poor choise of purpose.  There are many other disasters that have efected the world much, much more the Katrina did.

red, forget it i made the same comment in the thread it is hopeless, ewm likes to talk about the US and talk **** about the governemnet all the time, it is his hobby he needs to complain about it and do nothing himself

I know, but it raises my post count.  :D  

if you dont like the thread why are you keeping it alive?

yes thare are uther desater but this is about katrena not the uther desaters if you wish to tolk about thay you are more than welcom to start a thread about tham.

if i thot this was a bad thread i woold not have started it. i cant make evry one happy and i am not going to triy all i can do is tolk about what i am intrested in.

pleace lets get back to katrena.

how's the rebuilding of new orleans going?

fairly well, but not nearly complete.  However, progress is bieng made.

meny resadents still have not gotin inshrints payments and fema cant help tham so munny is tite with the resadents.

Many resedents of Iran affected by the earthquake havn't recieved any help at all

well you have to help your self be for you can help uthers.

if the life gard is drowning he or she cant save eny one elss.

the usa is drowing in det and failing systoms. we need to get back on ower feet so we can help uthers.

new orleens is a grate resores and a sept in the right dretion. we shood cansale the tax cuts and devert the munny to new orlneens.

No, ewm, my morals are still strong enough to where I help others FIRST, and myself second.

well its not about mores its more about self persivation.

a pore man or woman cant give to a nuther pore man.

evin if we wonted two help right now we cant do as much as we could if we had a good econamy.

dont miss understand i am 100% for helping uthers.

the usa is at a crosrode now ether we can help uthers as much as we wont untill the det gets bloded much ferther than it is rhite now till the pont we cant do eny thing out side of the usa.

or

we can give some help out now consintrate on geting ouer self up and runing than give out massive help to those how need it and do alot more.


we need to think long term here wich the usa is never ben good at. thare will all ways be some one how needs help. i just wont to make sher we have some thing to give in the fucher.

New Orleans is not vital to the survival of the US.  Yes, its a terrible thing that the city was damaged, but its not gonna kill us.

we will servie with out new orleens but geting new orleens perductive agin is a good step in the right dertion of terning this contry from being a spinding musheen in to a properise musheen.

but i all so think we need to take care of ower own be for takeing care of uther contrys we have pepal staving in new orleens be cuss thay cant aford food. thare no gass no cleen water no eletrisaty no heat in some parts of ne orleens still.

Most of New Orleans is doing just fine at the moment in other parts of the country (many of them in San Antonio, TX, which I have observed first hand, considering I live there).

The point is, at the moment, there are dozens of other areas that need help much more than we do.

that will all ways be the case.

do you know the saying you can fish for a man and feed him for a day or you can teach a man to fish and feed him for a life time?

well right now we can fish for uther cruntrys.

if we had a good econmy we could teach uther contrys to fish.

If you were paying attention, you'd know that we DO have a good economy!

how big is ower defasite agin i here its all ready the bigest desasite we have ever had.

we are all so not brakin evin we are loosing munny evry day lots of it from tax cuts, iraq and pork barile spinding.

we are cutting munny for the pore and homless be cuss thay cost to much munny.

we dont have a nuff munny to arm ower troops in iraq with the aquipmant thay need.

Oh, so you're complaining about tax cuts!?!   :lol:  

well the tax cuts dont make me or eny one in my tax bracit have relay eny more notasbule munny. thay cost the goverment lost and lots of munny that can be better spint elss whare.

all it is is steeling from the pore to give to the rich.

unless you earn 1,000,000 a year you not going to get much from it.

lol then you don't know economy. here in holland 3 years the economy went bad, taxes where raised like everywhere in europe, and result over 3 years economy is blooming again. not just in holland. it is th ebest way to go. better then to say of economy is bad lets give the people some money back. then the currency is worse of and you will get more like in the 30's

well your taxis wher hi to start with. the EU taxis make the us taxis look like buss fare. so cuting taxis that wher all redy low is a verry bad idea.

yes that is just what i said, raising taxes is needed

o sary my reading is not what i would like it to be.

but the pepal in power are for redusing taxis and reduseing the goverment is self.

the pepal in power think that is thare no goverment pepal out of the kind need of thare harts will fill in the gaps wich is crasy.

thay bluve that fath bast org will take over things thering america in th a theocracy.

And how do you know I don't?! :lol:  :P  ;)  

from meny difrant sores, ABC, NBC, BBC, washington post, new york time to name a few.

No, I mean how do you know that I don't earn 1,000,000 a year?  :P  

oi he said the alphabet television channels of the world told him so! :lol:  

[=!=]RedShirt Posted on Jan 13 2006, 01:28 AM  


I see dead people... No, wait, thats a herd of unstable eskimos.

 QUOTE (ewm90 @ Jan 12 2006, 01:02 AM)

ower presendent liyes and i dont tust a liyer.  


Oh, yes, and I'm sure Clinton was esspecially truthful... its not like he had an extra-marital affair or something dishonest like that....  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ewm90

well he has liyed alite as i out lined in the guns tread.

the only reson clinton liyed was be cuss he was inbarised be cuss that nosy reporter asking personal quetions and than the dumb respose from the rpulicans demading inpechant.

bush liyed and we go to war in iraq pepal die he ignores laws and no one asks for inpechment tell me what rong with this picher i am pating.
 

A lot more people have been murdered under Saddam's regime than they have under Bush's

i shere thats true BUT why did we have to use folty intelagins to permote the war. if a war is werth fiting you sould not need to use bad intelagins to peromot it.

Not entirely faulty.  The connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam DID exist, and whats to says that Iraq didn't just cart their WMD's to Syria?  And even if they didn't have any at the time, they were in the process of getting them.

thare is no perivin evadens be tween Al-Qaeda and Saddam that is a fact.

well we dont run a war on gessing we run it on facts that wher lacking in the invation of iraq.

meny pepal in cloding the CIA told Bush that thay had quetions about the lagitamisy of he information meny now what bush call obstructionists worned bush about the pore intelaginst intelogis with the inteagins.

if it had not ben for donaled rumsfilled we probloly whood not have gont to war he ignored the us generals colin pall and meny uther giving worning about the podabule bad intelagins and inconstansys.

the CIA evin Bush him self has imited pulical thare was no link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam  and that thare wher no realy hard fact that thare wher WMD.


thay wher not in the proses of geting tham erther thay had some aquipament so thay could start tham up in the fucher if thay wonted but thay had no WMDs.

i wish the aminastration whould have told pore colin pall that the evadens was folty in sted of leting him make a full of him self in frunt of the world.

ewm, I'm dissapointed in you.  I thought you had the ability to resist media-brainwashing and to think for yourself.  It appears that I was wrong.  In fact there have been four catagories corrospandances between Iraq and Al-Qaeda that have been confirmed without a shadow of a doubt.

#1: Meetings
Osama Bin-Laden met at least eight times with officers from Iraqi intellegance.  Perhaps the most dramatic of those occured in 1996, when the director of Iraq's intelligence services made a rare journey outside of Iraq to meet with Osama in Sudan.  The UK's leading liberal newspaper, The Guardian, reported in 1998 that hevisited Osama again, this time to offer him political assylum in Iraq.

#2: Money
Captured Iraqi documents reveal payments from Iraq to Al-Qaeda front groups.

#3: Training
Other documents indicate that Iraq trained Al-Qaeda operatives to make poison gas and to hijack airplanes.

#4: Personnel
The mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing entered the US on an Iraqi passport and another of the bombers fled to Iraq, where he recieved a government job.

do you have eny sores. i sher the predeand whould like to know after makeing that publick speech that thare where no links and no WMD.

i cant finds one eda sore out side of FOX new that sed that.

thay may have reported that, thare was meny clams by the bush adminastration that this was true meny paper reported the link all recanted later after lack of peroof.

all of this was rong.


the bush adminastration esposed the wife (Valery Plane) and covern us agint of a us ambasiter fore vosing that the information that thay where going to war on was rong. scooter libby the cheef of stafe of the vise predanet how did the outing.

the reporter how uncovered the story was sint to jail to triy to pertect the person how made this public in the end she faled to pertect her sore the sore gave in and relested her from her personal pertection of this sore.

And what does Valerie Plame have to do with Al-Qaeda?

Also, one of the reasons that it was only on Fox could be because CNN ans NBC has an overwhelmingly negative and pessimistic view on Iraq fueled by politics.[/i]  It is in part because of this that the third rerun of the O'Reily Factor at 4:00 am beats out the usual 8:00 pm NBC news program 50% of the time!!!

well incolwed the UK gardeon, BBC, washington post, new york times, ABC, CBS and the rest of the news meda thay all say the same thing.

FOX news is slanted unfare bisted and sperds disinformation.

have you ever knotested on FOX new thay have repulicans intervowed thay look well groomed and seem to know that thay are tolking about than thay have a demacrat no one respects how is dresed porely and gives uncleer meseges.

i live how bill O'Reily all ways shuts off the mic of pepal he duss not agree with make the aguments he has one sided.

:lol:

If Fox is so evil, than why are the other ones doing so poorly?

Oh, and if it seems that I didn't take your comment seriously, thats because I didn't

what uther ones doing porly?

well you dont have to take eny thing serisly if you dont wont to. i am just that saying i tolk you so is geting so old to be papl how dont take me serisly.

all of the perfeshanl news meda make fun of how one sided and propagnda drivin fox is. thare the one ony ones how get sugechons from thare corpite hed all most daily on how to report the news. FACT!

Foxs it a feel good station thay tell pepal how bleve in what thay like what thay wont to hear with out the truth if its negitve.

The other news channels are in trouble, and they know it.  They are taking every opertunity to criticize Fox, and all they have succeded in doing is making themselves look like idiots.  In fact, Ted Turner himself criticized Fox for devoting time to "frivolous" topics like missing children!!!

i dont see the uther news companys intrubal infact meny do better than fox.

news is not a copration i dont tern on the news to feel good if thats why you tern on the news you shoud look at swim shoot modals you will get just about as meny facts.

...abiet slanted on a liberal perspective.

eny thing that disagress with the conservive perpective i am gessing will be called the liberal perspective.

conservative or libarl it is the truth it has ben povin over and over agin by polls, traind perfeshanls, reserch, and tests.

evin if it is a liberal perspective wich its not duss that automatic make it wrong??

well go watch BBC 24 or SKy news then. man. it is very paranoidal just to suspect all news channels are bad. it is just a way some channels do their report. i find cnn just crap because they like to dramatise every accident with picking the worst off victims and showing worse case scenario's

it is just what you want.

our dutch news shows are seen not reliable aswell as it is too liberal in the views of other countries.

it just depends what kind of news you want and how it is presentated.

It depends if they let their political views get in the way of honesty (*cough* NEW YORK TIMES *cough cough*).  Its fine if they express their political views in the editorial section, as long as they STAY THERE.  That goes for ALL newspapers and news networks.  

well if you wont honesty, abit of advise dont lison to polations.

the 1# job of a polation is to be relected that sed you have to pic the poatiction that you think can solve the probloms that you learn about on the news.

the new well repot sensational stories not be cuss thay hate bush but be cuss sensationalism sells.

you will see more sensationalism on FOX than on eny uther net work or new out fite in the mane streem theys days.

if you remiber the clinton years Cnn new york time and all uther news out fits had bill clintons sexal scaned on the frunt page agin its not be cuss thay hated bill clinton it be cuss sensationalism sells.

That still doesn't come close to justifying how the New York Times milked the Abu-Gharib prison scandal.  Last time I had checked, they had done something like 80 front page stories on it.  Now THAT is inexcusable!

agin its sensationalism and sensationalism sells. it was shoking and haribal and whood make sher pepal paiyed for the paper to read it.

There's nothing "sensational" about repeating the same story over 80 times!

when it is a good story you will melk it al long at you can. thay did the same to clinton. wile clinton was in power i thot the cnn was more conservitve. its not about polatics its about munny.

It also happens that the Clinton story was much bigger than Abu-Gharib ever came close to bieng.

thats be cuss the news meda had very lital elss to publish about clinton. clinton was doing well and pepal wher happy at how the contry was runing at the time. so a hedline that clinton had a scandal was a bomn shell that the meda could melk.

it duss not refeclt the severity of the scandal it refects the lack of storys that could grab readers.

no, i think it was just the media's will to sandbag that guy.

I almost felt sorry for him.  If he wasn't stupid enough to get into the situation in the first place, I might actually have felt genuine sympathy.
Still, death by media is a horrible way to go...

well i would not say he was distroyed by the meda his wife is running.

the meda and the repulican partty did thare parts in attimping to distroy him thay realy smeered him.

His wife isn't the one who had an extramarital affair while in office!

what do you mean the republican party tried to destroy him

he had an affair in the oval office!!!!

he destroyed himself thats it. it was nothing any one else did that cause this it was his own stupidity so stop makeing the ofther party the bad guy and take it like a the man Clinton is not

Thats what I've been trying to say.  Thank you for so eloquently stating it.

haveing an affair is not aginst the law geees guys you dont seem to under stand the scandal.

its not thay he had a affair or abused his power that was aginsted the law its that he lied under othe that got him in trubal.


I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN

not that is was eny ones bissness what he duss on his spare time. Clinton gets layed and thay call for inpechment, bush liyes and lots and lots of pepal die harbal deths and he duss not get inpeched.

Its that he lied knowingly while in the oval office.  Bush didn't know that some of the intellegence was faulty.

bullshit course he knew, or at least the ppl passing on the intelligence knew it wasnt completely true or accurate yet still passed it on  

Wow, the filter didn't block "bullshit"?

Anyway, have you ever worked (or known anyone who worked) in an intellegance service?  Information isn't always completely reliable (hence the term "misinformation"), but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be acted on!

"He did" meny pepal reased consers to him about the information incoding colin pall, he desinted to go ahed with it eny whay despite the conserns rasned by meny pepal.

he sed it was a slam dunk.

Did you read my post, the one right before yours?  Read it.  THEN post.

YOU DONT GO TO WAR UNLESS YOU ARE ALL MOST COMPLEETLY SHERE ABUTE ABUTE THE INTEGAISE/EVADENTS. to much is at stake not to be. after fance rushan and germiny showed such strong resetints to the war that shood have ben a big sine some thing was rong.


and yes i mite have a frind how works for the U.S. M.I.

France and Germany have reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq, but if you were president, and some insane dictator may have a nuke pointed at your country, wouldn't YOU do something?

if i thot it was a crdabule threat and thare was some sinsabule ifcood do of cores i would.

the fact is that we were persowing a diplametic efert to chage iraq be for the war. evin the UN exsprested conserns about invading iraq.

you should read this:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731/ (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731/)   -  ms.N.B.C. msn.com


More British memos on prewar concerns[/size]
Officials deny intelligence that facts were fixed to invade Iraq


WASHINGTON — It started during British Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election campaign last month, when details leaked about a top-secret memo, written in July 2002 — eight months before the Iraq war. In the memo, British officials just back from Washington reported that prewar "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to invade Iraq.

Just last week, both President George W. Bush and Blair vigorously denied that war was inevitable.

“No, the facts were not being fixed, in any shape or form at all,” said Blair at a White House news conference with the president on June 7.

But now, war critics have come up with seven more memos, verified by NBC News.

One, also from July 2002, says U.S. military planners had given "little thought" to postwar Iraq.

“The memos are startlingly clear that the British saw that there was inadequate planning, little planning for the aftermath,” says Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

And there's more. To prepare Blair for a meeting at the president's ranch in April 2002, a year before the war, other British memos raised more questions.

After a dinner with Bush’s then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Blair's former national security adviser David Manning, now Britain's ambassador to the U.S., wondered, “What happens on the morning after” the war?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

thare was more than a nuff quetions rasted to imedily stop the invation. the quetion is why he did not.


+ when the dimacrats wher askted to ok the invaton of the war thay did not, thay gave the presadent the abullity to do more serching for weponds of WMD if thare was evadents of WMD than milatry ashion coud be brot to the tabuel. if i remiber crecly.


CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/ (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/)

Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say[/size]
Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs
Monday, March 22, 2004 Posted: 1:34 AM EST (0634 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.

Days before the fighting began, Vice President **** Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."

Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, "I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so -- and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge."

No evidence of a nuclear weapons program has been found so far.

Blix, who recounts his search for weapons of mass destruction in his book "Disarming Iraq," said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."

Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks.

"Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."

The most spectacular intelligence failure concerned a report by ElBaradei, who revealed that an alleged contract by Iraq with Niger to import uranium oxide was a forgery, Blix said.

"The document had been sitting with the CIA and their U.K. counterparts for a long while, and they had not discovered it," Blix said. "And I think it took the IAEA a day to discover that it was a forgery."

Blix said that during a meeting before the war with the U.S. president, Bush told him that "the U.S. genuinely wanted peace," and that "he was no wild, gung-ho Texan, bent on dragging the U.S. into war."

Blix said Bush gave the inspectors support and information at first, but he said the help didn't last long enough.

"I think they lost their patience much too early," Blix said.

"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.

Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei said.

Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.

"At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.

ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."

"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."

ElBaradei said he hoped the past year's events have taught world leaders a valuable lesson.

"We learned from Iraq that an inspection takes time, that we should be patient, that an inspection can, in fact, work."


 

Of course the UN "expressed concerns" about invading Iraq!  Heck, they "expressed concern" about the US interveneing in Kosovo too!  Remember that?

FACT: The UN is A JOKE.

true, but now they're totally useless after the invasion of iraq. before they were a joke, but they still had some pull. now it's gone.

i seem to recall several high level demecrates including hilery clinton voting to go to war in iraq.
 

the UN is not a joke it serves a perpuse and duss it job. its far from a joke it mite not have all the resores it needs to do evry thing it wants but it serves it perpuses.

thay did what thay needed to do and than bush did not like the out come of thare inspections so he invated serise thay wert rong and bush brocke the rules that wher set up for a good reson.


dimacrats DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR thay voted for inspetions is the inspections showed that thare wher WMD than war coud be put on the tabule. wich is far from voteing GO TO WAR.

Do you know how much of America was in favor of the war, just two weeks after it started?  

80%[/font].

Yes, 80%.  You tell me there wern't any democrats in that 80%!!!!!

If democrates did not vote for the war then way did 40 persent of the democrates vote for the uses of armed forces against Iraq

H J RES 114  YEA-AND-NAY
10-Oct-2002  3:05 PM
  QUESTION:  On Passage
  BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

...................Yeas....Nay...NV
Republican... 215 ......6 .....2
Democratic ...81 ....126 .....1
Independent .............1  
TOTALS .......296 ....133 ....3

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml)

SHO260 yes if thare was cleer evadints that iraq had WMD you have to see how the bill was posde and that is not a side that i can trust it duss not look offishal and it mite be a privit site with out fare reporting -  be carfulle how you get your facts from.

info be hind jone karry and uthers vote

frontline a offishal news show on PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...kerry/iraq.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/kerry/iraq.html)

keep in mind thay wher not givin the true thay wher givin bad inforamtion that the bush adminastratin pushed.

Oh, this ones a gem.  :lol:
First, he uses the horrible excuse of how "he can't trust that website" (which negates everything in his sig, because we can't trust those sites, either)
Then, he presents info from ultra-liberally-biased PBS and expects us to take it as fact, then he tells us that we should move the topic back some and keep talking about how "Bush is a liar" because hes afraid of where this topic is going.

In summary, we can tell by this desperate post of excuses that hes treading on thin ice, and is worried that this is a debate he might lose if he doesn't keep on the offensive.

i will look for a nuther sores later i dont have time now.

I believe it was this topic in which you were saying that Democrats didn't 'okay' Iraq, so here I go:

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002


You tell me those arn't Democrats.

those are sownd bites, karry never has a short speach. thes are bite of speeches that do not esasery resflect what the repersintotive was tring to say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP:
colin pall.
Powell Denies Rift Over Iraq Invasion
Secretary Defends the War, Says U.S. Got Rid of 'a Horrible Dictator'

By Peter Slevin and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 6, 2004; Page A06

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered a spirited defense of U.S. foreign policy and the war in Iraq, telling a convention of minority journalists in Washington yesterday that he was "solidly behind" the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

Speaking to Unity: Journalists of Color hours after Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry told the gathering that the Iraq war represented a failure of diplomacy, Powell replied: "We haven't had a failure in Iraq. We have gotten rid of a horrible dictator."

Asked about his experience being on the losing end of important foreign policy debates, Powell said "there was no split" over the invasion of Iraq once the Bush administration concluded Hussein had violated the final demands from the U.N. Security Council.

"I can assure you that I have in no way been constrained, contained or kept on the outside of our discussions," Powell said.

Kerry took a brief detour from his travels in the Midwest to address Unity, a consortium of four minority journalism associations. He focused attention on domestic issues and divisions of race, class and ethnicity, and he promised to run a more inclusive White House.

He pledged to fund federal programs that target a broad array of groups, from Native Americans to Filipino American veterans to Hispanics and African Americans without health care. He also promised to use his White House pulpit to press for an increase in the number of minorities holding prominent media jobs.

Noting that people of color are "only a tiny fraction" of editors, anchors and executives, Kerry challenged management to do better. He promised to appoint Federal Communications Commission members who will see that "small and minority-owned broadcasters are not consolidated into extinction."

The blue-blooded Democrat from Massachusetts, competing against an equally well-heeled president raised in Connecticut, told Unity he is the candidate who can best connect with minorities in the United States.

"Above all, who is truly committed to bridging the divides in this country that continue to separate, sometimes willfully, intentionally and politically . . . race from race, group from group, region from region?" Kerry asked. "I am also aware -- how can you live in America and not be aware? -- of the special challenges facing people of color."

In one of Kerry's biggest applause lines, he said every black vote would count in future elections. In 2000, many black voters were denied the right to vote as a result of breakdowns in registration and vote-counting systems.

"The harsh fact now is that in the last election more than 1 million African Americans were disenfranchised in one of the most tainted elections in history," Kerry said. "We have to see to it in November that every vote counts -- and every vote is counted."

Kerry measured his words carefully when asked to discuss actor Bill Cosby's admonition that black Americans take greater personal responsibility for their children instead of blaming others or the government if their children do not succeed. He said the comedian was being "excessively exclusive" by focusing on personal responsibility without acknowledging the protective role government must play.

"I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange [prison] suit," Cosby said in May remarks that created an intense debate. "Where were you when he was 2? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18, and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol? . . . In all of this work, we cannot blame white people."

"I understand exactly where Bill is coming from in his comment," Kerry said. "It may be excessively exclusive in the breadth of it, in the sense that it sort of targets just the responsibility side, but that's an important side."

Kerry said government and society are to blame, too, for not providing adequate assistance and protections to minorities.

"We also need to do the things we need to do as a society to empower those people, have plans for those kids, to make the world safer," Kerry said. "It's all of us together."

President Bush is to address the Unity convention today.

After Kerry departed and Powell's turn came, the secretary of state insisted that Bush administration's foreign policy is more multilateral than its critics at home and abroad contend -- and more effective. He said that if the United States had not deposed Hussein, the Iraqi leader would have developed unconventional weapons.

"We would have faced those weapons at another time, at another place," Powell said.

Before the invasion, Powell expressed doubts in administrative channels about the wisdom of the war and the president's understanding of its implications, but he said yesterday that he was "solidly behind what the president found he had to do last spring when he undertook Operation Iraqi Freedom."

"And I'm pleased that that dictator is gone," added Powell, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "He's been a thorn in my side for the last 12 years, too, I can assure you."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...3-2004Aug5.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43733-2004Aug5.html)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerrys Senate Web page:
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=247764 (http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=247764)

Let’s be straight about Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in ****. But that was not the reason America went to war. The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise. I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can’t rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally. We are where we are. The President’s flippant “bring it on” taunt to the insurgents has found a meaning beyond his wildest expectations, a painful reality for troops who went for too long without protective armor. We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure, and the mission the President once declared accomplished remains perilously incomplete. To set a new course, we must be strong, smart, and honest. As we learned painfully during the Vietnam War, no president can sustain a war without the support of the American people. In the case of Iraq, their patience is frayed and nearly to the breaking point because Americans will not tolerate our troops giving their lives without a clear strategy, and will not tolerate vague platitudes or rosy scenarios when real answers are urgently needed. It’s time for leaders to be honest that if we do not change course, there is the prospect of indefinite, even endless conflict - a fate untenable for our troops, and a future unacceptable to the American people and the Iraqis who pray for the day when a stable Iraq will belong to Iraqis alone. The path forward will not be easy. The administration’s incompetence and unwillingness to listen has made the task that much harder, and reduced what we can expect to accomplish. But there is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives. With so much at stake, we must follow it.


 

One quote down, 8 more to go.

Oh, and that doesn't change the fact that Kerry himself admitted that he believed that there were WMDs in Iraq.

i dont have tme nore the desiser to go proving every bit of disinformatin that is posted. if you wont the realy truth you can look it up.

his mistake is that he trusted the presadent i shere he wont make that mistake agin.

 

i'm sure a lot of people won't  

I did look it up and I do have the truth.

you know i just notesed thare alll dated 2002 be for we know what a crupt, lier, and frod bush realy is lol.

bill Clinton i can find no present link to his apon now that the WMD and link to tarisom was a lie. i can not find cerint stament from him. his vows will be no difrant from the rest of the part you can be sher of that shock, disaponment, anger, frustartion, and distrust.


 

personally i think the iraqi war was a good thing as it got rid of saddam who had been killing his own ppl and was a threat to global peace and you cant deny that

Of course they're dated 2002, considering thats when they said them.  I could go back and change them to '06 if ya want, to make them more 'modern'.

To Frodo:

Perfect explanation, which means ewm will ignore it.

bill clinton on staments i looked thow whished we had ginein the un more time stated in - 2005 nov

i agree we rushed to war to fast and make up fake in intelagints make you wonder why bush wonted to go to war so bady no one but bush will ever know the truth.

i think the war was a heribal failer of ower presadent and a failer checks and blaines.

hey i read every thing thats posted and thing about it be for responding. that was a unfare coment [=!=]RedShirt.

Give me a list of aspects you think make it a failure.

1) the fact that the bush adminastration did not do more work to make sher the intell he had was sownd and the fownd haveing a doutes vosted to him about the inframtion did do more to make sher it was sound intell.

2) rushing to war with out backup plands incase of things like a inserginsy.

3) ingnoring the UN inprestion what was the pont of evin having one if he was not going to take it serisly.

4) the fact that we have a raging inserginsy that trating to plung the contry in to sival war.

5) the fact that we puch the bathist out of the govermt leving tham no option but to be come insergints.

6) are seeming inabulity to trane a nuff iraqs to take over sercirty of most iraq or all of iraq.

7) the fact that we have still no cleer idea if the contry will work of not.

8) the fact we dont have anuff capital to giver ower brave men and woman all the aquipmant thay need.

9) the fact the contry is so unsafe the meda can not go evry wher it wonts to resport all side eny more.

10) the fact that we wint in to iraq to push tarists out but insted let tarists in to the contrys a sad twist of fate.

11) the fact that if we dont see the inserginsy quite down after the govermental elections thare will be very lital hope for the USA to get iraq back on its feet.

---- i have a feeling we will here some start realitys coming from the preadent on january 30 his state of the unon.

Irrelevant.  That has nothing to do with the war itself.

Also, our intel would have been alot better if Clinton didn't SCREW IT UP during his term.


Yet again, that has nothing to do with the progress we've made in Iraq.


There WAS no point.


Finnaly, something that is relevant to the war.

And do you know where those insurgents are coming from?  Syria, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.


My GOD, get a grip on REALITY!  Iraq has a DEMOCRACY now, so if the ba'thists arn't in the government, THAT MEANS THE IRAQIS DONT WANT THEM THERE.


This is a valid point, but I'm sure that the Iraqis are ALOT more ready that the liberal media lets on.  In fact, the terrorists see them as such a big threat they've taken to targeting them instead of the US forces!


No progress can ever be made unless risks are taken.


If you know a way to fix this, I'd love to hear about it.


Its a shame, because they're missing all the good news on the front lines.


The fact that Saddam's oppresive government is no longer in power MORE than makes up for it.


In case you havn't noticed, the insurgency has been winding down since... well, since we invaded Iraq.

Now, my turn.

1) Saddam is GONE.  Can't argue with that one.

2) Iraq has a Democratic govenment

3) The insurgency is quieting down.

4) The Kurds are free to rebuild after Saddam's oppresion (which included using WMDs on them!)

5) Al-Qaeda is crumbling.

6) US casualties are diminishing

7) The Iraqi most wanted are mostly put away or dead.(including the Hussien brothers, who were arguably WORSE than their father)

8) Iraqi women face less discrimination.

9) The Shiites are no longer oppressed.

10) Many formerly exiled Iraqis are able to return to their homeland in peace.

11) Isreal is safe from Iraq

12) The Palestinian terrorists are no longer funded by Iraq

13) The Iraqi government has representitives from ALL major ethnic groups, and instead of bieng a simgle party, is now over 100 seperate parties.

14) The number of US troops in Iraq are decreasing.

-EDIT-

Oh, and I found this which I think I'll post here

'War is a horrible thing. However, we need to remember that sometimes there are worse alternatives.'

1 -

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

2 -

A man who has nothing for which he willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

3 -

All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.

Number 1 and 2 pretty much describes the anti-war movement. These people would have loved Chamberlane. Given the opportunity to "maintain" peace at all costs, these people would have marched to prevent their country into war to protect others and then sold their own children into slavery to keep themselves alive when the enemy comes to their own front doors. I like to call them liberals.

Number 3 pretty much describes France and their "veto any resolution put forth by the United States" stance they took at the UN Security Council.

-EDIT-


*deleted; turned out to be false*

-EDIT-

I dare you to find ONE SPEECH by President Bush that specificly states that there was a link beween Iraq and Al-Qaeda!

Also, you say Bush was wrong to attack Iraq?

Click This Link NOW. (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/)

"The activity occurred shortly after U.S. President Bill Clinton announced he had ordered a "strong, sustained" series of airstrikes on military and security forces in Iraq, designed to degrade Iraq's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction."

Wow - a PRE-EMPTIVE strike against a nation that DIDN'T immediately threaten the U.S. or the world!!! Now, where did I hear THAT before?

-EDIT-

Want some more?

Click this! (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html)

From Mr. Kay himself regarding the current search on Iraqi WMD:

"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
 

1) serow what up? what do you mean how do you think he scowed it up?

2) i think it duss we would have made alot more progress if we had planed beeter.

3) the dimacrats dont a gree and most of the warld duss not agree. thay told us it is unlikly that iraq has wmd. wich sould have made bush stop his invation and have the us intelaginst comunity pull up more information. the bill atherising bush to go to war in iraq was athrised only if thare was clear infromation that thare was a hi chase of WMD the un report stated that the infarmation that the bush adminastration put out was not a slam dunk and need to be rechecked.

4) the kerd wher free to do that eny whay be for the inavation is the kerdish secter that was pertected by the usa.

5)well the problom is meny have joned the insergisy be cuss thay feel hopless and thay are hoping the insergisy can make sher thay have a job in the fucher.

6) well all so the far and blinsted meda shares the same feer.

7) but some risk should not be takin.

8) get rid of taxcuts and get rid of alot of pork chage the way we do bisnes in gonral.

9) not only that we cant hear the conser of the insergisy eny more so it makes it hard to know if we are doing the right things diplamticly.

10) i dont agree tarist and uther pepal how can and mite grab power in the fucher could be evin wers for iraq and the USA/isreal.

11) i have seen tham get more dedly. its inposbule to say thay have ben witaled down sisn no one has eny idea how meny thare are.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[=!=]RedShirt rebutal

1) thats true.

2) maby thare are alot of atonimes regons and womans rights and meny laws that we conserter vital we had to do away with to make sher we evin had a goverment.

3) thay quited down dering the election now thay have resommed thare normal levals.

4) i think you meen thay have a chase ot have a atomais kerdish state in the fucher posabule.

5) i am not convisted.

6) its ben about the same the last coppal of day thare was a slite drop thare wher 2 deths two day.

7) thats a cleer pluse

8) that can be debated. when we trised to inpose free rhites for wwoman we fownd alot of ded woman flowing down the river in the cinter of bagdad and we have ben cuting back womans rights ever sens to try to rech compermizes over the goverment.

9) thats true. but if the soonis **** of the sheites anuff we mite have ethic clinssing.

10) the ones left alive.

11) that depinds on if we can get a goverment to gether and keep it.

12) thats true.

13) yep thats true.

14) thats be cuss of the strong opasinson and chging tactics to the war, not becuss of progress.

____________________________________________________________________

bushs link beween between al-qita and iraq - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/) - MSnbc

(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040616/040616_911commission_hmed0.h2.jpg)
Staff members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States testify as the independent panel opens its final public hearing on the attacks Wednesday in Washington.

9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida
Commission opens final hearing before release of report

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 6:48 p.m. ET June 16, 2004
WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.

In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that bin Laden made overtures to toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for assistance, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.

The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.”

Bin Laden ceased that support in the early 1990s, opening the way for a meeting between the al-Qaida leader and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 in Sudan, the report said. At the meeting, bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said.

No ‘collaborative relationship’ seen
It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.”
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RELATED STORY
Sept. 11 plot initially called for 10 planes
 
Fred Fielding, a Republican member of the commission, prodded witnesses about their conclusion, citing a 1998 indictment of bin Laden that alleged links with the then-Iraqi leader.

But U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald of Illinois said that while such claims were contained in the original indictment, they were dropped when later charges were filed.

The panel's findings were released two days after Vice President **** Cheney asserted that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida.

Bush says al-Zarqawi ‘best evidence’
President Bush defended the statement in a news conference Tuesday, saying the presence in Iraq of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is accused of trying to disrupt the transfer of sovereignty as well as last month's decapitation of American Nicholas Berg, provides "the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida."

In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

The White House had no immediate comment on the report's conclusion, but it drew a fresh attack on Bush from Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate.

"The administration misled America and the administration reached too far," the Massachusetts Democrat told Michigan NPR in an interview.

Meeting between hijacker, Iraqi agent discounted
In a second staff report released Wednesday, the commission staff said that Mohamed Atta, the pilot of one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center and leader of the 19 hijackers, never met with Iraqi agents in Prague, Czech Republic. That purported meeting also has been cited as evidence of a possible al-Qaida connection to Iraq.

“We do not believe that such a meeting occurred,” the report said.

The release of the reports came as the 10-member commission opened its final public hearing on the attacks. The hearing, being held Wednesday and Thursday, will cover the Sept. 11 plot and the emergency response by the Federal Aviation Administration and U.S. air defenses. Commissioners say they will delve into the actions of the nation’s top leaders during critical moments of the attacks.

The panel intends to issue a final report in July on the hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000, destroyed the World Trade Centers in New York and damaged the Pentagon outside Washington. A fourth plane commandeered by terrorists crashed in the countryside in Pennsylvania.

At the final public hearing, the commission was planning to focus on the nation’s air defense, details of the plot and confusion and miscommunication among agencies during the attacks, hindering a response.

How al-Qaida became ‘fast-acting, poisonous’
“We’re going to talk about the evolution of al-Qaida and how they moved from one type of organization in the late 1980s to a more fast-acting, poisonous organization in the 1990s, more spread out and dispersed,” said Timothy Roemer, a Democratic commissioner and former representative from Indiana.

“We’ll be looking at the timeline as to whether or not we had an opportunity to deflect any of the airliners, and how decisions were made by the highest people in government,” he said.

In its report, the commission staff pieced together information on the development of bin Laden’s network, from the far-flung training camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to funding from “well-placed financial facilitators and diversions of funds from Islamic charities.”

Reports that bin Laden had a huge personal fortune to finance acts of terror are overstated, the report said.

The description of the training camp operations contained elements of faint, grudging praise.

“A worldwide jihad needed terrorists who could bomb embassies or hijack airliners, but it also needed foot soldiers for the Taliban in its war against the Northern Alliance, and guerrillas who could shoot down Russian helicopters in Chechnya or ambush Indian units in Kashmir,” it said.

According to one unnamed senior al-Qaida associate, various ideas were floated by mujahedeen in Afghanistan, the commission said. The options included taking over a launcher and forcing Russian scientists to fire a nuclear missile at the United States, mounting mustard gas or cyanide attacks against Jewish areas in Iraq or releasing poison gas into the air conditioning system of a targeted building.

“Last but not least, hijacking an aircraft and crashing it into an airport or nearby city,” it said.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
about that CNN link you posted December 16, 1998 at that time it was posabule be had some biolagical weponds. but clinton was smart a nuff not to go to war with iraq.
doing strick and comiting the us army to a ocupation are 2 very difrant things.
the stricks scare iraq in to geting back to the negoshation tabule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the cia link you posted

a sniped from it: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/spee...y_10022003.html (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html)

We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis.  

Why ewm, isn't it obvious?  By enacting law that stated that no US intellegance official could affiliate with anyone with a criminal background- which effectively ELIMINATED 90% of out intellegance gathering capbilities.


The Iraqi "army" sure seemed like it caved pretty fast to me.


The only reason that their was a weapons inspection to begin with is because everyone thought they had them.  And it doesn't help matters that the inspection was headed by HANS BLIX, the same guy who missed the Iraqi WMDs (that we later found out WERE there) in the first inspection!

Advice for the politically retarded:  Just bacause you can't see it, doesn't mean that its not there.


Bullshit.  They're joining the insurgency because they hate America.  If they wanted a good job, they'd support the government!

You're trying to make the terrorists sound like human biengs- stop, because they ARNT.  These are the same terrorists who flew planes into the twin towers- CIVILIAN BUILDINGS, no less, and took 2000+ lives in the attack, many of them woman and children!  Also, no human bieng worth feeling for BLOWS HIMSELF UP in front of schools or in weddings or in a marketplace!


Only because terrorists seem to enjoy abducting them and brutally beheading them- more proof of my assertion that the terrorists arn't human biengs worth sympathizing!


Thats true.  But in this case, taking a risk FREED 25 MILLION PEOPLE BRUTALLY OPRESSED BY SADDAM'S REGIME!  Or have you forgotten that?


Yea, like how Halliburton got rich on Iraq?  If you call a 0.02% profit "rich", that is...


If we can't hear them, that means they're weak, which means that we are WINNING.  Also, you may have heard this phrase before: "WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS"


Unless the terrorists can do something to Isreal that the COMBINED FORCES OF EGYPT, JORDAN, AND SYRIA CAN'T, I don't think Isreal is in much trouble.  Or have you forgotten about the six-day war too?  The Arab world hasn't.


More deadly?  Tell me, ewm, just what are you smoking?  Even if you watch the LIBERAL MEDIA, which I'm sure you do, that THE DEATH TOLL HAS GONE DOWN.  It would take someone blind, deaf, and with his fingers cut off not to notice that!

----------------------------------------------------


Glad you admit it.


Would you care to elaborate?  Either that or spell check reeeeaaal hard on this one.  Also, specify who government your talking about.


Its also interesting to note that the "normal levels" seem to be getting lower and lower.


Nice try, but twisting my words isn't gonna work this time.  No, I mean't that they have a chance to rebuild after the brutal oppresion they suffered at Saddam's hand.  If they wan't to declare independance, thats their buisness, not that of the US.


I didn't expect you would be, but that doesn't make it any less true.


It goes with the diminishing terrorist activity- the smaller the conflict, the fewer the casualties.


See 1)


That discrimination which they continue to face is because of their religeous beliefs, and I'm in no position to debate that since I'm not a muslim.  My point is, they are no longer oppressed because of Saddam.


Not likely.  The US will never stand for that, and I don't think the Shiites will risk doing something THAT stupid.


If they arn't alive, whos fault is that?  Saddam's!


Thinks are going fine so far.  Of course, you watch CNN, so you might not think so.  I watch CNN to.  I know how they spin the war.  And thats what it is, spinning.


Once more, see #1


" "


Au contraire, ewm.  I'm sure the anti-war movement would love to give themselves a pat on the back, but the truth remains that politics have nothing to do with it.  You see, the sad truth (for liberals anyway) is that were winning the war.


----------------------------------------------------



The fact remains that if we didn't invade Iraq, they would have gotten WMDs by now, assuming they didn't have any already.

No sane human bieng can believe that Saddam didn't want to get WMDs.


----------------------------------------------------



On the CNN link:

Bullshit.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...03/378fmxyz.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp)





Oh, and I found a quote which I think perfectly describes the UN:

"The UN has become nothing more than a corrupt debating society where dictators and tyrants can strut the world stage as if they were important."

1) i dont know anuff abo