EnderAndrew Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 The United States does. We have the second largest stockpile of nukes in the world. I'd uninvent them all if I could, but that's not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phosphor Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 If he gets elected again, I'm moving to Canada because IMO that's about when the Apocalypse is going to hit. :ph34r: Heh, we're about to get our very own George W. Bush in the form of Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party, whom are poised to emerge victorious in the upcoming federal election. I wouldn't get your plane ticket just yet. Maybe if Bush loses to Kerry and Harper wins, I'll move to the US! I hope to all that is sacred that Bush does not get re-elected. Personal opinions of him aside (for good or for ill), he has not exactly made America internationally loved. He's created more division and animosity in the world, and certainly has shattered US credibility on an international level. I'd think that Americans, should they wish to be taken seriously on the global stage, have a responsibility to vote Bush out, if only to gain respect again. The US wants to be a world leader, fine. But understand that there's a responsibility to the world there, not just to America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I'm also hoping for Kerry. He seems more reasonable, more "democratic" and carries less of a baggage than Bush. The US needs a leader who doesn't see the world as a testing ground for new weapons or a store where you can just walk in and grab whichever resource you need at the moment. A leader that helps strengthen the UN instead of weakening it. Of course, the "democracy" in the US works in mysterious ways. Less than 50% of the people allowed to vote votes, and in the last election, less than 50% voted for Bush. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Also, Clinton was never impeached. He was censored. They considered impeachment. Likewise, Nixon was never impeached. Jackson remains the only US President to ever be impeached. clinton was very much impeached. he was acquitted, however. nixon was not impeached though he was informed that if he did not resign, he would be impeached and convicted. impeachment is the normal crime equivalent of an indictment. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phosphor Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I'm also hoping for Kerry. He seems more reasonable, more "democratic" and carries less of a baggage than Bush. The US needs a leader who doesn't see the world as a testing ground for new weapons or a store where you can just walk in and grab whichever resource you need at the moment. A leader that helps strengthen the UN instead of weakening it. I like Kerry, too. From what I've read of him and his speeches throughout the campaign, he seems like an intelligent, thoughtful and "leaderly" individual. Of course he's not perfect - no-one that seeks to be president can be all that trustworthy (if you want that kind of power, you really shouldn't have it), but overall he seems decent. Leagues better than Bush, at any rate. Wish I could vote for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Besides, it is clear that he manipulates the american people since he contols all the media... Do you realize that many things concerning what happens in Irak is simply censored in the US? I am happy to be european... excuse me? i beg to differ... maybe if you lived here you'd understand that the abu ghraib prison has been on the front page of the NY Times 43 out of 47 days, yet not one mention of the new Iraqi PM thanking the US for liberating them. we get NOTHING but news about how poorly things in iraq are going. no mentions of the fact that now children in iraq can ALL go to school, even girls (why nobody cared that girls couldn't go to school before saddam was removed is beyond me). 80% of the country now has electrical power, which is much more than before... they now are able to speak freely, conduct business and live their lives without the fear of saddam's repression. NONE of that is reported in our press... maybe you need a refresher course on what's really happening over here... if there's any censorship going on, it's the good that is coming out of this whole affair... nobody seems to care how much better off the iraqi people are and moronic statements such as this only make matters worse. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 You talk about biased journalism. Are you aware that Fox News, ABC, CBS, and NBA are all owned by Liberals? fox news is owned by rupert murdoch, and EXTREME conservative... taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 excuse me? i beg to differ... maybe if you lived here you'd understand that the abu ghraib prison has been on the front page of the NY Times 43 out of 47 days, yet not one mention of the new Iraqi PM thanking the US for liberating them. we get NOTHING but news about how poorly things in iraq are going. no mentions of the fact that now children in iraq can ALL go to school, even girls (why nobody cared that girls couldn't go to school before saddam was removed is beyond me). 80% of the country now has electrical power, which is much more than before... they now are able to speak freely, conduct business and live their lives without the fear of saddam's repression. NONE of that is reported in our press... maybe you need a refresher course on what's really happening over here... if there's any censorship going on, it's the good that is coming out of this whole affair... nobody seems to care how much better off the iraqi people are and moronic statements such as this only make matters worse. taks You claim they write this nowhere, so where do you get your facts from? Iraq is now a land in chaos, noone goes to school at all and the reason there are still hostility in the area is because the Iraqi people wants the US troops out of their country. The US soldiers expected to be met by the Iraqi people waving little american flags in their hands, but were shocked when they realized the Iraqi people didn't want them there. That's the information I've been given. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...4208767,00.html Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 You claim they write this nowhere, so where do you get your facts from? Iraq is now a land in chaos, noone goes to school at all and the reason there are still hostility in the area is because the Iraqi people wants the US troops out of their country. The US soldiers expected to be met by the Iraqi people waving little american flags in their hands, but were shocked when they realized the Iraqi people didn't want them there. That's the information I've been given. ??? where are you getting your information from? there are outlets here for reliable news mkreku. you've been told children aren't in school? that's a flat out lie... someone's feeding you a line of s**t. yes, there are still hostilities, but much of it is being caused by hardliners from saddam's baathist party members that want him back. there's also a contingent of foreign "terrorists" causing grief. some iraqi's do want us out, only so they can run things themselves... those commiting terrorist acts, however, aren't indicitive of the whole nation... perhaps you should do some research at places OTHER than liberal media sources... it's there, just not on the front page of the times... taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniggy Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 excuse me? i beg to differ... maybe if you lived here you'd understand that the abu ghraib prison has been on the front page of the NY Times 43 out of 47 days, yet not one mention of the new Iraqi PM thanking the US for liberating them. we get NOTHING but news about how poorly things in iraq are going. no mentions of the fact that now children in iraq can ALL go to school, even girls (why nobody cared that girls couldn't go to school before saddam was removed is beyond me). 80% of the country now has electrical power, which is much more than before... they now are able to speak freely, conduct business and live their lives without the fear of saddam's repression. NONE of that is reported in our press... maybe you need a refresher course on what's really happening over here... if there's any censorship going on, it's the good that is coming out of this whole affair... nobody seems to care how much better off the iraqi people are and moronic statements such as this only make matters worse. taks well, i can see why you get upset with that remark, but democracy is a foreign concept to a region with a clan based culture. people there just dont expect their girls to go to school. btw, your info on electricity in iraq is wrong. they had a working power system before 1st gulf war- after the sanction the place got trouble in that department. true, 80% running now, but only after 80% was bombed away in the 2nd war. as to speaking "freely" - i assume that critique of the "new regime" is as unwelcome as critique on the old one was. furthermore, with religious fanatics on the rise there, free speech is also becoming an alien concept once more. you can't translate your values to that region do you really think that the iraqi are better off? it may seem so for the moment, but consider that the land is in turmoil. no one knows what will happen once us forces pull out. also, the whole region was destabilized. i agree with taking down the saddam regime - but the way it was done was full of failures. there was a fundemental misunderstanding of the culture and beliefs of that region. mark my words. It's very hard to be polite if you're a cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniggy Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 yes, there are still hostilities, but much of it is being caused by hardliners from saddam's baathist party members that want him back. its not just them. regional warlords and religious groups as well as the kurds all want a piece of the old nation there's also a contingent of foreign "terrorists" causing grief. like who? the whole terrorist threat is being overused by now. some iraqi's do want us out, only so they can run things themselves... those commiting terrorist acts, however, aren't indicitive of the whole nation... you are right on both accounts, but as the us and british troops will pull out anyway, using "acts of terrorism" IS an indication of the internal power struggle that the coutnry is facing at the moment. perhaps you should do some research at places OTHER than liberal media sources... it's there, just not on the front page of the times... interesting point- what's your source? could you name some so that we might be informed as well? I use indymedia from time to time. It's very hard to be polite if you're a cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 exactly where did i defend the way everything was done? i'm just commenting on the propaganda and lies that are being spread by moronic statements that the hard left seems so eager to adopt. and statements such as "people over there just don't expect their girls to go to school" is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. one of the principles of freedom is that we're ALL FREE. not just men, women, too. they're there now, and whether you like it or not, that's better. also, first you say my 80% is wrong, then you say "true, 80% now."???? nonsensical. either it's 80% working now and it wasn't before or not??? make up your mind. in all reality, right before the invasion, saddam shut off and sabotaged nearly ALL of their power... that's just how good he was for his people. billions of dollars extorted from them (food for oil anybody?) and we're the bad guys for going in there. problems always exist with these situations, but they only get worse when things are reported out of context and twisted to meet an agenda. do some research, it's not that hard... taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 interesting point- what's your source? could you name some so that we might be informed as well? I use indymedia from time to time. i dunno, maybe foxnews once in a while? oh wait, they're biased... forgot about that. they cover ALL news, not just a prison scandal... sheesh... taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 The claims that Bush lied to bring the US into a war are not only false, the notion makes my heart hurt. It makes no sense what so ever. I dare you to make a logical argument debunking my claims here and demonstrating how he lied. I'm laying down the gauntlet. Please go ahead and try. " Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II, April 18, 1946 I'm sure this won't ring a bell, but I thought it was a funny quote. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 People keep blaming sanctions on the condition of Iraq. Before the sanctions existed, Saddam kept his people in poverty and lived in the life of luxury. After the sanctions, he just made things worse. He rigged his oil drills with bombs, took out his own water treatment facilities and used troops to keep food out of major cities. But the world liked Saddam and calls Bush a dictator. I really believe alot of this stems from anti-American sentiment in general, and people are using the Iraq situation as an excuse to vent their pre-existing hatred for America. I didn't hear the globe singing America's praises either when Clinton was in office. The UN didn't care for his bombing of four countries either. Super-powers are rarely popular. As far as I'm concerned, the President of the United States should concern him/herself predominately with doing what they truly to believe to be right and worry less about public opinion. Clinton was popular with the American public, but that didn't make him a good man. I think the last President to be both popular and decent was Kennedy. We seem to get one or the other. I wish we could get someone like Tony Blair over in the states, or have Colin Powell run for office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 ???where are you getting your information from? there are outlets here for reliable news mkreku. you've been told children aren't in school? that's a flat out lie... someone's feeding you a line of s**t. Ok, I actually posted a link to The Guardian, a huge newspaper in England.. That's one of my sources. Which are your "outlets for reliable news"? Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weiser_Cain Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Everyone should fill in where they come from, I ignore criticism from foreigners. They don't get a say! Yaw devs, Yaw!!! ( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniggy Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 exactly where did i defend the way everything was done? did i say that you said that? i'm just commenting on the propaganda and lies that are being spread by moronic statements that the hard left seems so eager to adopt. you're right. hard left n right both tend to use same kinds of argumentation techniques and statements such as "people over there just don't expect their girls to go to school" is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. one of the principles of freedom is that we're ALL FREE. not just men, women, too. they're there now, and whether you like it or not, that's better. look, i COME from that culture, ok? my cousin was married to some guy she didn't know when she was 16 and guess what? it was OK due to tradition. now, I dont agree with it- you certainly don't agree with it, but that doesnt mean that there isn't a culture wherein its perfectly normal for girls NOT to go to school and just stay home and marry also, first you say my 80% is wrong, then you say "true, 80% now."???? nonsensical. either it's 80% working now and it wasn't before or not??? make up your mind. sorry, but i am not a native english speaker. what i meant was: iraq had a working power system before the war. saddam did NOT have it turned off- it was bombed off during the war. one such case was to be seen life in one iraqi hospital in bagdad as a german crew was filming it at that time. the power grid failed due to heavy ally bombing. it was perfectly fine before that i billions of dollars extorted from them (food for oil anybody?) and we're the bad guys for going in there. there were many lengthy reports on why the "food for oil" program failed in many ways. most important one being: the money out of the oil sale didn't really help people there- it was a nice way of getting oil out of a sanctioned country, though problems always exist with these situations, but they only get worse when things are reported out of context and twisted to meet an agenda. do some research, it's not that hard... why do you assume that i have not done any research? you are the one who's not naming any of your resources. besides, i am not twisting anything to meet any agenda- merely stating some facts It's very hard to be polite if you're a cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniggy Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Everyone should fill in where they come from, I ignore criticism from foreigners. They don't get a say! oh and why is THAT exactly? It's very hard to be polite if you're a cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 People keep blaming sanctions on the condition of Iraq. Before the sanctions existed, Saddam kept his people in poverty and lived in the life of luxury. After the sanctions, he just made things worse. He rigged his oil drills with bombs, took out his own water treatment facilities and used troops to keep food out of major cities. While the US/UK-led military campaigns of the Gulf War in 1991, the bombings of 1998, and 2003 have ended, that is not the end of the story for the people of Iraq. * Iraq was bombed regularly by the US and Britain as part of a no fly zone enforcement during the sanctions regime. * An estimated one million people had died since the sanctions enforced by the UN Security Council after the Gulf War ended. o Most nations wished to lift the sanctions, but the US and UK continued to oppose any such calls. o As this paper shows, the sanctions themselves are illegal and have had gross consequences for the people of Iraq. * The brutal Saddam Hussain, whom the US helped to bring in to power in the 1980s, remained unaffected while the Iraqi people suffered. * Iraq used to have one of the best measures in the world for standards of living. Now it is in the bottom twenty percent. In just 10 years of sanctions. * Basic medicines were not available as children died from treatable diseases. * Even chlorine had been blocked and that is needed for disinfection of water that has already been contaminated from the allied bombing. This quote is taken from http://www.globalissues.org/ Where do you get your facts from? Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Everyone should fill in where they come from, I ignore criticism from foreigners. They don't get a say! I understand now why you like Bush. Ps. I am from Sweden. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Whether you live in the US or around the globe, I think most people would agree that the BBC and CNN have been fairly reliable as major news networks providing global news. CNN is owned by Ted Turner, or now AOL-TIME Warner. During 1996 when the olympics were in Atlanta, Ted Turner hired thugs to pick all the homeless people off the streets of Atlanta, throw them on a bus and dump them outside town. It was despicable. CNN reported what Ted Turner did, despite the fact that they were ratting out their boss. CNN shows reports from Arab TV stations, claims from Islamic militants, democrats and republicans. CNN has shown children now attending show in Iraq, as well as the protestors in Russia calling Bush a tyrant. CNN is where I get 95% of my news from. FoxNews hired Geraldo as a journalist. And they got kicked out of broadcasting in the UK for irresponsible journalism and making stories up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniggy Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 People keep blaming sanctions on the condition of Iraq. Before the sanctions existed, Saddam kept his people in poverty and lived in the life of luxury. After the sanctions, he just made things worse. He rigged his oil drills with bombs, took out his own water treatment facilities and used troops to keep food out of major cities we're not blaming the sanctions per se, but the way the sanctions were implemented. they were too strict in some regards, bordering on ridicule. come one- look at cuba as another example for sanctions. is cuba still a threat to the US? yes, the saddam regime did all that and NO, the world did not "like saddam". maybe you should ask yourselves why there is a general anti-american sentiment today? the guy up there is rarely a "good one". that's true for most politicians i guess- but clinton had an advantage over bush- he knew how to work his allies for his own ends- bush didn't manage that and tried to force his interests. that made him "the bad guy" in the eyes of the world. it doesn't matter wheter a country is a super power or not- if you openly say that you're basically crapping on UN and calling it obsolete, then you're saying to everyone: screw off. and still expect them to like you? kennedy was popular, but he too wasn't a nice, innocent guy either. no politician is. It's very hard to be polite if you're a cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 CNN is where I get 95% of my news from. I use CNN as a main source of information too. News are always filtrated through your mind, and a mind is made up of previous experiences and events, which is why our opinions differ so much in the matter, despite our information coming from the same source. When I search for facts, though, I tend to search for voluntary organizations, help oganizations, and other hopefully neutral observers. Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniggy Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Whether you live in the US or around the globe, I think most people would agree that the BBC and CNN have been fairly reliable as major news networks providing global news. yeah, but only partly. there has been a lot of stuff restricted / censored on CNN / BBC as well, i.e. the "sports killing" of a wounded iraqi by us troops. it was filmed by a CNN crew, but CNN couldn't show it- they sold the clip to the arabian news station later on CNN is where I get 95% of my news from. its about 70% for me. 20% is BBC, 10% other stations (most being internet based) It's very hard to be polite if you're a cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now