| Who is the biggest international threat to peace and security? |
| Al Qaeda |
|
10% |
[ 4 ] |
| Iran |
|
7% |
[ 3 ] |
| Syria |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| North Korea |
|
23% |
[ 9 ] |
| Israel |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Palestinians |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| The United States |
|
48% |
[ 19 ] |
| The European Union |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
| The United Nations |
|
7% |
[ 3 ] |
| Libya |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 39 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
 Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:09 pm |
|
| Quote: | | Jemah, you don't know me so therefore your opinion of me I don't give a rip. Cause your words are just hateful |
my words are not hateful. they are truthful. or can't you discern the difference?
| Quote: | Ok, Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 2000. He's a liar - show me a leader who's not. He's a cheat - show me a politician who isn't. And if urging an attack on another country is "soliciting murder", he's got LOTS of company.
Does any of that make it bad thing that Iraq will have freedom in the first time in 30 years? |
yes, lots of company in the past. in 2004, you had a chance with another leader. a chance that could have proven to have been more truthful and yet, you chose the liar. this makes the united states look foolish and pigheaded. soliciting murder was a common trait of leaders in the past and in countries with dictators. it should never have happened in a country like the united states. yet it did. and what surprises me is that you're fine with it. if a leader had lied to me and taken advantage of my trust, i would be angered. why are people still trying to make excuses? does truth now hold such little worth in american society?
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:13 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | | does truth now hold such little worth in american society? |
Truth is entire subjective and dependent upon the individual experiencing the event. Truth for one individual is seldom truth for another, and there is no such thing as 'absolute truth,' the only reason something seems 'absolutely true,' is because a large group of people all agree upon it.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:15 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | | Quote: | | Jemah, you don't know me so therefore your opinion of me I don't give a rip. Cause your words are just hateful |
my words are not hateful. they are truthful. or can't you discern the difference?
| Quote: | Ok, Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 2000. He's a liar - show me a leader who's not. He's a cheat - show me a politician who isn't. And if urging an attack on another country is "soliciting murder", he's got LOTS of company.
Does any of that make it bad thing that Iraq will have freedom in the first time in 30 years? |
yes, lots of company in the past. in 2004, you had a chance with another leader. a chance that could have proven to have been more truthful and yet, you chose the liar. this makes the united states look foolish and pigheaded. soliciting murder was a common trait of leaders in the past and in countries with dictators. it should never have happened in a country like the united states. yet it did. and what surprises me is that you're fine with it. if a leader had lied to me and taken advantage of my trust, i would be angered. why are people still trying to make excuses? does truth now hold such little worth in american society? |
First, you didn't answer my question. Second, I have no problem with the invasion of Iraq, because I truly believe that in the long run the people of Iraq will benefit. And I see a big difference between making a case for liberating a country and "soliciting murder". So I am glad Bush got re-elected.
Also, I don't see you raging against the wars, political cheating and lies going on in Africa during the same period, or how bad some African leaders are.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:19 pm |
|
so you're saying that the end justifies the means. that's foolish.
and i don't live in africa. o_O
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:30 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | so you're saying that the end justifies the means. that's foolish.
and i don't live in africa. o_O |
It's not foolish; it's how most of the significant changes in the world have been brought about.
And I'm saying that beneficial ends don't need justification.
I didn't say you lived in Africa. Does someone have to live in a place to care what goes on there?
And you still haven't answered my question.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:54 pm |
|
so you want to bring up africa then? well.. let me see. what has the united states done about the congo or rwanda or uganda? nothing. too busy in iraq i suppose? finding all of those weapons of mass destruction. 
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:11 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | | so you want to bring up africa then? well.. let me see. what has the united states done about the congo or rwanda or uganda? nothing. too busy in iraq i suppose? finding all of those weapons of mass destruction. |
I didn't say that. I was just pointing out that there were other leaders of other countries lying, cheating and "soliciting murder" between 9/11 and now, but you seem obsessed with Bush.
Also, your statement implies that you believe the US should be playing world policeman. 
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:23 pm |
|
What people haven't pointed out is that it is one person's word. I could do that as well, say someone is something. People wouldn't believe me, why believe this person?
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:45 pm |
|
| Quote: | | Also, your statement implies that you believe the US should be playing world policeman. |
i believe that the us, having had the best economy (not anymore), should help whomever they can. not by starting wars but by spreading peace and aid. i think that spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war which turned out to be under a suspicion that was wrong was foolish and it could have been spent otherwise.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:03 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | | Quote: | | Also, your statement implies that you believe the US should be playing world policeman. |
i believe that the us, having had the best economy (not anymore), should help whomever they can. not by starting wars but by spreading peace and aid. i think that spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war which turned out to be under a suspicion that was wrong was foolish and it could have been spent otherwise. |
You seem to be convinced that the only reason for the war was WMD. Other reasons have been given since day one. And those reasons will have the most far-reaching effects.
And the US is spreading peace and aid.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:38 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | | Quote: | | It is a preemptive strike, and President Bush has even said that |
so you take bush's word to be complete truth? it wouldn't be a preemptive strike is bush hadn't said it was would it? 
| Quote: | | But it was a preemptive attack because we thought that there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam would harm us if he was not stopped. That's a preemptive strike. |
so you admit that it was under a suspicion and there were no weapons of mass destruction then? that this war was premature and utterly idiotic? and wasn't there an admission that the information gathered to support this theory was false?  did you miss that part? but saddam isn't in power anymore, right? that's now what they claim was the ultimate reason for attacking. (covering their asses). so the end justifies the means now?  |
No. It was preventing an attacked taht seemed imminent.
| 4evajaneway wrote: | | I personally think that we went after saddam because bush sr. couldn't get him, so we just had to go avenge daddy. |
Yeah, fine, conspiracy theories away, even if they're not true!
| Jemah wrote: | | the journalist who wrote that is renouned. if you want to brush it off then so be it, but it is at least, mostly true. (nothing can be 100% truth). open your eyes! your president is a cheat, a liar, and a silicitor of murder. |
Thank you for attacking my President dishonestly!
| Theresa wrote: | | Jemah wrote: | where do you get your news articles? i'm sure that the site at which they're obtained is also tainted with bias. do a google search.. use the words:
bush to invade iraq pre election 2000
i'm sure all sorts of interesting articles will pop up. and they will. i have searched that exactly and it appears that other more credible news sources have the story as well.
http://www.alternet.org/election04/2004/10/002620.html |
To think any news service is unbiased would be quite naive, now wouldn't it? And most of the things that I see when I search for anything regarding Bush is negative, at least on the surface,  The media here, at least, is incredibly liberal. Just look at how CBS just nailed themselves to the wall. So bad that their head anchorman has to step down. (He, of course, cites other reasons.) |
EXCELENT point!
| Jemah wrote: | what about fox news? they're oh so liberal aren't they?
rbgirl, any news you hear of bush's lies or truths comes to you through the media. hypocracy is obvious in your post as well as resounding ignorance. you must argue your point! not just blindly shout it. otherwise, it will be discounted, as it has been by myself. |
No, FOX REALLY is fair and balanced. They allow BOTH sides to be heard pretty much ALWAYS. And when they don't, they have the other side on later.
| Jemah wrote: | | Quote: | | Jemah, you don't know me so therefore your opinion of me I don't give a rip. Cause your words are just hateful |
my words are not hateful. they are truthful. or can't you discern the difference?
Sure, whatever They are NOT the truth. You have yet to prove that.
| Quote: | Ok, Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 2000. He's a liar - show me a leader who's not. He's a cheat - show me a politician who isn't. And if urging an attack on another country is "soliciting murder", he's got LOTS of company.
Does any of that make it bad thing that Iraq will have freedom in the first time in 30 years? |
yes, lots of company in the past. in 2004, you had a chance with another leader. a chance that could have proven to have been more truthful and yet, you chose the liar. this makes the united states look foolish and pigheaded. soliciting murder was a common trait of leaders in the past and in countries with dictators. it should never have happened in a country like the united states. yet it did. and what surprises me is that you're fine with it. if a leader had lied to me and taken advantage of my trust, i would be angered. why are people still trying to make excuses? does truth now hold such little worth in american society? |
Yeah, Kerry, truthful! That's a laugh! And soliciting murder--my gosh! Rb's right. All you have is hate!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:29 pm |
|
fox is not fair.. give me a break.
and you say i have hate? wow.. have you not read anything i have typed? you my friend, are the most ignorant person that i have ever met. how can you read what i have typed and say that i am hateful? how can you read what i have typed and say that i have yet to provide proof? you are blind. you are a turtle who has receeded into his shell of religion and conservativism; who denies the truths of humanity and sees nothing but what other turtles have to say. when you finally come out from under the shell that is ignorance, you'll be astounded.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:32 pm |
|
Please don't make comments about other users.
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:33 pm |
|
i apologise. 
| Quote: | | All you have is hate! |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:41 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | fox is not fair.. give me a break.
and you say i have hate? wow.. have you not read anything i have typed? you my friend, are the most ignorant person that i have ever met. how can you read what i have typed and say that i am hateful? how can you read what i have typed and say that i have yet to provide proof? you are blind. you are a turtle who has receeded into his shell of religion and conservativism; who denies the truths of humanity and sees nothing but what other turtles have to say. when you finally come out from under the shell that is ignorance, you'll be astounded. |
Well thank you! ::Sarcasm::
I am ignorant? Sir, it is not me who is ignorant. And what you are saying is that Bush solicitated murder, etc, which IS promoting hatred, and that IS really all that you have contributed.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:44 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Jemah wrote: | fox is not fair.. give me a break.
and you say i have hate? wow.. have you not read anything i have typed? you my friend, are the most ignorant person that i have ever met. how can you read what i have typed and say that i am hateful? how can you read what i have typed and say that i have yet to provide proof? you are blind. you are a turtle who has receeded into his shell of religion and conservativism; who denies the truths of humanity and sees nothing but what other turtles have to say. when you finally come out from under the shell that is ignorance, you'll be astounded. |
Well thank you! ::Sarcasm::
I am ignorant? Sir, it is not me who is ignorant. And what you are saying is that Bush solicitated murder, etc, which IS promoting hatred, and that IS really all that you have contributed. |
no, it's prompting an opinion. or can't i have one anymore? not everyone thinks that the ape in the whitehouse is great. bush LIES.
i would think that such a devout christian would take offense to that.
and i can tell when someone is being sarcastic. thanks.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:15 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Jemah wrote: | fox is not fair.. give me a break.
and you say i have hate? wow.. have you not read anything i have typed? you my friend, are the most ignorant person that i have ever met. how can you read what i have typed and say that i am hateful? how can you read what i have typed and say that i have yet to provide proof? you are blind. you are a turtle who has receeded into his shell of religion and conservativism; who denies the truths of humanity and sees nothing but what other turtles have to say. when you finally come out from under the shell that is ignorance, you'll be astounded. |
Well thank you! ::Sarcasm::
I am ignorant? Sir, it is not me who is ignorant. And what you are saying is that Bush solicitated murder, etc, which IS promoting hatred, and that IS really all that you have contributed. |
no, it's prompting an opinion. or can't i have one anymore? not everyone thinks that the ape in the whitehouse is great. bush LIES.
i would think that such a devout christian would take offense to that.
and i can tell when someone is being sarcastic. thanks. |
1. HH is right. ALL politicians DO lie, at one point or another, but on the Iraq War, BUSH DID NOT LIE! You have NO TRUE backing of that argument.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:25 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | 1. HH is right. ALL politicians DO lie, at one point or another, but on the Iraq War, BUSH DID NOT LIE! You have NO TRUE backing of that argument. |
I'm not convinced that Bush's reasons for going into Iraq are as obvious as he has laid out. If it's worth anything, however, I do think that he was sincere about the weapons of mass destruction and the threat to the U.S., and he did not merely present those as reasons to justify his invasion.
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:29 pm |
|
he stated that his reasons were weapons of mass destruction. he claimed it would be a short war. where are the weapons? when is the killing to stop? 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:31 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | | he stated that his reasons were weapons of mass destruction. he claimed it would be a short war. where are the weapons? when is the killing to stop? |
Does that mean that he lied? KNOW. It appears, to MOST people (not myself), that we were WRONG about WMDs, and we may have been, but even if we were, that would NOT make HIM a LIAR. Just because weapons "weren't found" doesn't mean anything. And we failed to predict the enemy. A flaw. We didn't realize what the terrorists would do. Does that make him a liar? No. And I say we won the war, but we're still fighting the battle. Remember, the war was against Iraq. This is now a major front on the War on Terror.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:33 pm |
|
you make me so mad... 
there weren't terrorists involved with iraq. that wasn't among the reasons for attacking and there was no proof that they harbored terrorists. there are terrorists in iraq now as a result of this damned war. the UN was involved in inspecting. they found nothing. the the united states took it upon itself to attack. it was stupid and foolish. they didn't find anything. how in HELL can you claim that they were right and there were weapons of mass destruction? i mean really! bush can't even pronounce the word nuclear correctly, how can he, except under a slim suspicion (which has proven to be wrong), know that there were weapons (or you for that matter)? especially when the UN inspected multiple times. do you know how i can claim there weren't? NONE WERE BLOODY HELL FOUND! that's how.
he lied or he made a mistake. whatever it was, he was wrong! you can't deny this to be true!
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:51 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | you make me so mad...
there weren't terrorists involved with iraq. that wasn't among the reasons for attacking and there was no proof that they harbored terrorists. there are terrorists in iraq now as a result of this damned war.
Om, yeah, think that if you will, but it's NOT TRUE. Ever hear of Zarqowi, the man cutting off heads now? He's an associate with Al Qaida. During Saddam's reign of terror he was HARBORED there, given the best medical attention, and allowed to operate there! And there's more than just that, like communications between Saddam's henchmen and Al Qaida! There were no ties to terrorism my butt! (Btw, Saddam HIMSELF was a terrorist )
the UN was involved in inspecting. they found nothing. the the united states took it upon itself to attack. it was stupid and foolish. they didn't find anything. how in HELL can you claim that they were right and there were weapons of mass destruction? i mean really! bush can't even pronounce the word nuclear correctly, how can he, except under a slim suspicion (which has proven to be wrong), know that there were weapons (or you for that matter)? especially when the UN inspected multiple times. do you know how i can claim there weren't? NONE WERE BLOODY HELL FOUND! that's how.
he lied or he made a mistake. whatever it was, he was wrong! you can't deny this to be true! |
1. The Un was inspecting with GREAT restriction, and for a while they were SHUT OUT. That's ALL that he complied with with Resolution 1441--allowing them to go back in SO CLOSE to before the war began.
2. Yes, we took it upon ourselves to attack because it seemed as an imminent threat.
3. I can claim that they were right because of the tapes played by Powell before the Un Security Council AND the situation along the Iraq-Syrian border. Need I explain the latter again?
4. I do not KNOW that there were WMDs, just as I do not KNOW that there weren't. But I THINK that there were.
5. Yes, I can deny it, and if EVERYONE was wrong then so be it. Don't shove it on ONE man when the entire intelligence communittee and other world leaders (including France and Germany) aknowledged it. If EVERYONE was wrong, then we had an intelligence failure. But at least the world is a better place and democracy is spilling throughout the Middle East.
Do you deny THIS?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jemah
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:12 pm |
|
it still doesn't change the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction (the reason for initially beginning this war).
"i think there are nuculer weapons.. i have an IQ of 82.. i'm am inbred texan".
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:24 pm |
|
| Jemah wrote: | it still doesn't change the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction (the reason for initially beginning this war).
"i think there are nuculer weapons.. i have an IQ of 82.. i'm am inbred texan". |
He doesn't sound like that when saying Nuclear, although he does mispronounce it.
He has a higher IQ than that, and graduated from Yale AND Harvard.
And so NOW you're attacking Texans? What is it with you?
And that was not the ONLY reason, although it was the superceding one, but you should NOT say that it was unjust.
Now, answer this question, and NO spinning/dodging it.
Is the world--especially Iraq--a better place because of our actions?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:26 pm |
|
And let me post this here, too:
Yes. How is a war that FREES people from tyranny and a ruthless, evil dictator that
-Put people (Men, women, and children alike) into Rape Rooms and Torture Chambers (Remember the Abu Grahaib scandle? Try the prison under SADDAM control)
-Brutally whipped his people
-Gassed his own people
-Sent out assassines to kill anyone who spoke of a family member that was killed (an Iraqi COUNCILWOMAN FROM BAGHDAD spoke this to me; she couldn't talk about her dead brother)
-Put people in plastic body shredders (yes, children too)
-Raped and tortured children in front of their parents and vice-versa.
-He also oppressed his people.
Now tell me: having stopped this, HOW is this an unjust war?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
