|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted January 20, 2003 02:41 AM |
|
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 21, 2003 06:59 AM |
|
|
Quote
“I´m a bit doubtful about CNN´s respectability.
You take the cake man…CNN is suspect to you but some unknown magazine (Talk Magazine by your report) is the gospel truth…lol. If you knew anything about Ted Turner (a fellow Christian ridiculer and staunch atheist) you would know that his creation (CNN) would lean towards presenting a pretty picture of liberals and socialist if anything.
Quote
“Even if that is true, he helped out on the home front. He did better than Clinton, who ran away from the draft. Then he went to Great Britain and rallied protesters against the US.”
Well I was going to respond to PH but you did it better than I could
Quote
“He became president by winning both the popular vote and the antiquated electoral vote. That is something that GWB didn't do.”
Hmmm interesting how you left out that Clinton is one of the few presidents in history who did NOT win a majority of votes in his last election. Also to say that GWB did not win the popular vote…completly obscures the massive victory in Bush winning at all. For a VP to loose after serving under a president who won two terms…plus a VP who was running while the economy was in good condition…well for Bush to win in that situation goes against most historical precedence. Not to mention Bush’s approval ratings have soared above any Clinton had in comparison years.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 21, 2003 11:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You take the cake man…CNN is suspect to you but some unknown magazine (Talk Magazine by your report) is the gospel truth…lol.
Sorry, but that comparison is idiotic and makes another example of your narrow mind. I say that an undisclaimed interview is a news source with a very good chance to be fact. This interview you mention did have some media echo, so a disclaimer would have made sense for sure, if it had been a fake.
You fast believer of anything that suits you and ultra-ultra-ultra-sceptic of anything that does not, disregard it as a certain fake, solely based on the magazine´s name.
If you are not able not see the lack of integrity in such a conclusion, I suppose you cannot be helped.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 25, 2003 05:40 AM |
|
|
Quote
"disregard it as a certain fake, solely based on the magazine´s name."
No the name of the magazine just was the icing on the cake. The fact that it alone recorded those allegations and the fact that it is a no name mag makes it suspect...simple as that. As for narrow mind there..well my friend once again that is ironic coming from you. For me, I am not afraid to read and examine things I don't agree with such as Freud, Plato, Nietzche, Gilligan, many Christain authors, etc.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2003 03:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The fact that it alone recorded those allegations
That´s quite a natural thing with interviews. Who else would print the interview but the newspaper who made it?Quote:
and the fact that it is a no name mag makes it suspect
Just like "Schwäbisches Tagblatt". The difference: The report in "Schwäbischem Tagblatt", which you call "fact", has been disclaimed.
Quote:
For me, I am not afraid to read and examine things I don't agree with such
What are you talking about?? Do you mean your fool suggestion that I read a book from your choosing? If I would read every thing that some fanatic from an internet forum wants me to read, I would have to quit my job.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2003 04:42 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Who else would print the interview but the newspaper who made it?”
As I mentioned before…when an article rings of truth it is picked up by the general news media…when it is suspect…well the silence is pretty deafening.
Quote
“What are you talking about?? Do you mean your fool suggestion that I read a book from your choosing? “
Chill …you take attacks personally when none is even intended. I was not referring to you at all…can’t a person say “I’m not afraid” without someone else taking it as a personal attack that the they are afraid. If I said “I am not afraid like Lews is” then maybe I might be able to understand your reaction.
Quote
“If I would read every thing that some fanatic from an internet forum wants me to read, I would have to quit my job. “
You know I really appreciate the respectful tone in which you respond to an instance many months ago where I made a friendly suggestion of reaching out that might engage us both in a better understanding of each other’s world view. So much for reaching out.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2003 06:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
“Who else would print the interview but the newspaper who made it?”
Articles do not ring. Either a newspaper that prints fake and defaming interviews can be sued, or anyone is free to allege anything ... I doubt that this is legal in your country.
The interview with Bush junior has been reported by the the European media, the one with Bush senior (which contained name of the journalist, and exact place, date and time) has led to protests by atheist organisations. Hundreds, maybe thousands of letters were written to G.Bush´s bureau. And he ignored them all when the interview text was all made-up?
As I said before, it´s very unlikely that one of them is a fake, let alone both. You did not just express doubts, no, you completely dismissed and ridiculed both (using rude language by the way). That´s where it didn´t make any more sense to me, to treat you in a respectful way. When you act like a fanatic (= make your judgement about true/false based upon what you like to be true and what not), then I sooner or later decide that arguments are wasted on you.
Quote:
Chill …you take attacks personally when none is even intended. I was not referring to you at all…
You said:"As for narrow mind there..well my friend once again that is ironic coming from you. For me, I am not afraid to read and examine things I don't agree with ..."
I think this is very clearly directed to me, even if that hadn´t been your intention when you wrote it.
To me, it looked like an extremely unfair attack on my person, based on my refusal of what you called your "challenge". As I had said earlier, your idea isn´t bad but it doesn´t work for us, because I have no corresponding English book. It´s okay to attack me personally, but on the grounds of this "challenge" thing, it would be a bad foul, IMO.
If this has not been your intention, I apologize for the rude words I responded with.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2003 04:28 AM |
|
|
Quote
"I apologize for the rude words I responded with."
I appreciate that...seriously the "book challenge" didn't even enter my mind when I wrote the statement about me reading authors I don't agree with. But I can see how it might of seemed like I was bringing it up.
Well I guess it is time to put to sleep the whole debate about newspaper articles in general as I think we have both repeated the same thing like 5 times
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2003 04:37 AM |
|
|
BBC and other news organizations reported on 1/30/02:
“The heads of eight European states have issued a joint declaration of solidarity with the United States in its campaign to disarm Saddam Hussein.
In an apparent rebuff to France and Germany's opposition to military action, the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic said the Iraqi president must not be allowed to violate UN resolutions.”
So much for unilateral….lol…I thought the EU was all against us except Britain!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 02, 2003 02:54 PM |
|
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder how many of them will actually contribute as many troops as we will? We are after all sending some 36,000 men there which is around 1/4 of our entire trained and mechanised forces...............
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted February 03, 2003 12:56 AM |
|
|
This just in...
Sixty-six percent in this ABC News/ Washington Post poll support attacking Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, up from 57 percent Jan. 20. And for the first time the slimmest majority, 51 percent, supports action even over United Nations opposition.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 03, 2003 03:39 PM |
|
|
Mind you a recent Times (A reputable source I think you could say) article over here did show that virtually all of the European nations were dead against action without UN support, and many of those pledged to support by their governments (inc btw Britain) have most of their people against war even with it. Never mind huh, no-one said governments should represent people I guess.
Oh and if I still have the paper (it is 2 days ago now and as I'm in athens on holiday the hotel cleaner may have thrown it out) I can back that up with figures before anyone asks.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2003 05:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Mind you a recent Times (A reputable source I think you could say) article over here did show that virtually all of the European nations were dead against action without UN support.
the UN already gave unanimous support upon material breach (which no one of any intellect denies Ira is in material breach at this time given that they have produced a false report on what happened to all their WMD)...so UN has already spoken on the matter.
According to the UN resolution it is not required for the USA to come back to the UN for a second authorization of their first authorization...but then I guess some would be crying for a third authorization of their second authorization of their first authorization
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 04, 2003 11:22 AM |
|
|
I thought Blix and Elbaradei (or whatever their names are) were asking for more time before an attack, mentioning months at least? That's the impression I got from CNN recently anyway. Besides my comment was that most of the POPULATION of european nations are against attacks without a UN mandate (which was the question) the governments are clearly ignorant of their own people's opinions though.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2003 05:17 AM |
|
|
Wow what a speech…what an incredible amount of evidence against Saddam
Now its time to separate the people of integrity from the people who have none. After Powell’s brilliant speech the verdict is in and it soundly indicates that Saddam has WMD, is trying to hide them, and is/has worked with terrorists.
Some people/nations will now be exposed for the frauds they are….they always tried to hide behind “we don’t have enough evidence”…when in reality that was a sham and incredibly disingenuous as they will be against a preventative strike no matter what the evidence is. Shame on them for pretending want to be reasonable when all they were doing was lying through their teeth.
Others really did have true reservations and wanted to see evidence… and now they will have the integrity to get behind regime change.
The old Europe wasn’t swayed at this time which shows their true colors. Lets move forward and leave old Europe in the past.
France is head deep in their money connection with Saddam, as they were the number 1 trade partner with Saddam in all of Europe. Germany’s unemployment now hit an amazing 11%...they can’t distract their people for ever with their anti-regime change position. In the end they both are sovereign nations and they can sit out if they like…it is their right…I just hope they don’t try impede the plans of regime change and respect the rights of other sovereign nations.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 06, 2003 03:29 PM |
|
|
Not having caught the speech I'll reserve judgement for now methinks. As for those who said there wasn't enough evidence, given that only now you have released the evidence it's hardly suprising they didn't just take america's word for it.
As I said though, I wasn't around to see the speech (and I don't speak Greek to understand the later highlights on normal greek TV)
As for france and germany, could it remotely be the fact that neither countrie's population want a conflict that also influences the governments of those nations? That poll I mentioned said that some 52% of germans were against conflict, even with a UN mandate, and some 29% of French people are also against conflict even with a UN mandate. Those figures rise to 86% for france and 87% for germany without a mandate also. Other nations of note include Finland, Sweeden, Austria and Greece all of whom have 60%+ of their people against war under any circumstances.
It's not always policiticans who have grievances against war, sometimes they are actually reflecting their people's views! (shock horror)
And what's all this BS about "old" europe? Germany's only been in existence 150 years as a nation so it's hardly based on age of country. If you mean methods of diplomacy and actions I'd suggest that both France and Germany were quite active in the almost gunboat diplomacy being used by Blair and Bush when they were colonial powers. France esp still is highly active in supporting stable regimes in former colonies with the use of troops (though they tend to be more subtle, IE not sending 3 or 4 carriers and 2-3 divisions to do the job)
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 06, 2003 04:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Others really did have true reservations and wanted to see evidence? and now they will have the integrity to get behind regime change.
The old Europe wasn?t swayed at this time which shows their true colors. Lets move forward and leave old Europe in the past.
France is head deep in their money connection with Saddam, as they were the number 1 trade partner with Saddam in all of Europe. Germany?s unemployment now hit an amazing 11%...they can?t distract their people for ever with their anti-regime change position. In the end they both are sovereign nations and they can sit out if they like?it is their right?I just hope they don?t try impede the plans of regime change and respect the rights of other sovereign nations.
Careful dargon, this sounds suspiciously close to "The US is attacking Iraq to get it's oil and distract from the poor economy."
Saying Saddam Hussein should not be in control of Iraq is not == to saying that war with Iraq == good/right decision.
Vietnam being under communist rule (if you like, being under what was claimed as communist rule) was not a good thing. That doesn't mean that going to war in Vietnam was the good/right decision.
There are a large number of dictators in the world that are not particularly good people and should not be in charge. That doesn't mean that it is a good decision to go to war to remove any particular one of them or to remove all of them is a good/right decision.
Plus, for the record "growth media for bacteria" that was listed as evidence of a biological weapons program is essentially sugar water with some salt in it. I, personally, have 10 L of the stuff sitting on my lab bench right now. I have never performed research on biological weapons.
On the plus side, Powell really raised the bar for dramatic UN stunts. Kruschev's shoe banging is pathetic now, next to bringing freakin' anthrax into the UN. That rocked. (I don't know what was really in the vial, but still. That rocked.)
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2003 02:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Wow what a speech…what an incredible amount of evidence against Saddam
First I thought someone´s being sarcastic, until I realized ... it´s from Dargon!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Even the more conservative and right-wing commentators said that Powell´s report was weaker than expected, brought hardly anything new, and partly relied on nothing but speculation.
According to them, the only new information is the alleged connection to Al-Quaida. Which hasn´t been proven in any way.
But I suppose there´s no relation between what Powell said and your being impressed about it.
Reading your propaganda-parrot-like posting, I feel strongly reminded of Orwell´s "1984".
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted February 07, 2003 02:41 AM |
|
|
I think that the best part of the whole speech wasn't even in the speech, it was after with the Iraqi reaction. That guy was sweating bullets! All he said was what they were saying all along "the U.S. want's to attack because we are a muslim nation" then there's "the U.S. is fabricating evidence", "any third rate intelligence agency could produce tapes like that" What a load of poo (lack of a better term)
I don't know if anyone else read this but Nelson Mandela said the U.S. doesn't want to follow the U.N. because the leader of the U.N. is black. I thought this rediculus.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2003 06:02 AM |
|
|
Washington Post reported today:
"Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons, the very weapons the dictator tells the world he does not have," Bush said.”
Well that pretty much says it all.
One thing I heard the other day that makes a lot of sense. Expect heavy civilian casualties in Iraq…know why…cause Saddam will be killing his own people (much as he already did in the past) for two purposes…one to try and embarrass the US as he blames the killings on the USA collateral damage…and secondly if Saddam knows he is going down he will seek revenge on any humans he can as he is such a petty controlling tyrannical megalomaniac.
Quote
“Careful dargon, this sounds suspiciously close to "The US is attacking Iraq to get it's oil and distract from the poor economy."
I have no qualms about pointing out the many non-mentioned possible ulterior motives of Germany and France, since the critics of regime change have been bringing up the USA’s possible ulterior motives ad nauseam. Moreover there is a HUGE difference between what I stated and what they have stated. I honor there right to have ulterior motives and chose to sit out…on the other hand those who are critics of the regime change demand that other sovereign nations submit to their wishes. My view honors individuality…the other view wants complete control and to annihilate a nation’s sovereignty….big difference there.
Quote
“Saying Saddam Hussein should not be in control of Iraq is not == to saying that war with Iraq == good/right decision. “
The issue at hand that I brought up was is there evidence. So many critics have been saying where is the beef…so now they have the beef and it is time to see if they truly wanted the beef or were just grandstanding and being completely disingenuous. Now if the critics would of originally stated “I am against any preemptive strike for any reason” then they would have been honorable (they would have been incorrect, but at least honest)_…but since most of them didn’t have the courage to take such a stand they now show themselves to be deceitful and conniving (sp?).
Quote
“I don't know if anyone else read this but Nelson Mandela said the U.S. doesn't want to follow the U.N. because the leader of the U.N. is black. I thought this rediculus.”
Mandella is a great example of a man with such promise who has become a blithering idiot….and not just cause of his stand on Iraq.
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
