Happy New Year! More Freedom Exists

[eric]

Now you are resorting to not addressing the issue anymore, would you please answer the question I posed to you.

 

[jimnyc]

fine, give me a list of what you consider 'reputable' news sources so I can figure out what you'll believe and what you'll consider drivel.

Just post any links you have, it'll be better than what we're working with now.

while you may have quoted me word for word, you read it the way you wanted to. What you see and hear is not always whats being done and spoken. As for righting my 'spin' when you demanded facts, didn't happen. I simply clarified my remarks.

And your clarification was COMPLETELY different than what you originally stated.

As for your 'proof' request, I admit that I can find no certifiable documentation stating that henry kissinger or ronald reagan knew, and admitted, that these weapons would fall in to the hands of children, does that make it any less true? probably, in your view of the world with 'reputable' news sources.

It makes it less factual, and obviously carries less weight in a debate. It then becomes "opinion".

your welcome, I'll just consider all of your opinions worthless as well until you can provide reputable news sources.

I said it before and I'll say it again, when you doubt something I try to pass off as fact, I URGE you to demand sources to backup my claims.

 

[DKSuddeth]

heres war crimes issue links then

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/OurWarCriminals_RS.html

heres one with nicaragua and war crimes
http://www.rense.com/general32/TRUST.HTM

war crimes and human rights issue

http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc480.html


children and weapons link

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/arms-exports.cfm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,10674,1059843,00.html

 

[r3volut!on]

You spoke earlier about terrorist having to be proved guilty, does the same not apply to our president?

I'll assume you are referring to this question. I apologize, seemed like a rhetorical question to me.

You're right, innocent until proven guilty. Under that logic, Bush is still innocent. However, no one has arrested him, stripped him of his rights, and shipped him offshore to Guantanamo Bay. There would be quite a lot of objection to that. My point is, your comparison is ridiculous.

It's democracy. Free speech and what not. Based on the information I've seen, it is MY OPINION that the Bush Administration lied. I don't think they were very forthcoming with their actual reasons for war. Reasons that I BELIEVE to be purely economical. Now, please note that I'm stating opinion, and I'm not saying you have to agree with me, so I also shouldn't have to provide a bibliography here.

Furthermore, interpret as you wish, but if I read a sentence that begins with "I think" I certainly don't interpret what follows to be fact.

Maybe that's just me.

 

[DKSuddeth]

In a very technical sense, eric is right. Having to live with a former grammar teacher I hear it all the time when I use incorrect grammar (its a shame she's my wife or I would move out) and it gets really annoying at times.

When you wish to state an opinion about something, always start off with 'In my opinion'. It can make things less confusing.

 

[r3volut!on]

i think...err...in my opinion....i've just been corrected

my apologies, I made a grammatical error.

 

[eric]

My analogy between Bush and the terrorists was simple; all I was eluding to was the fact that you give the terrorist the benefit of the doubt but you don't extend the same courtesy to our president. I think you read too deeply into what I was saying. I obviously was not comparing their situations directly but rather illustrating a principle.

 

[eric]

Now being honest I'm sure there was an economical element to our decision to invade Iraq, although I have yet to see any ROI. Putting aside the reasons Bush stated for the invasion, I would tend to believe it was more a strategic reason than an economic one. Even after the Iraqi government takes control of their country you can rest assured we are going to maintain a military presence in that country for many years to come as we will in afganistan. Now add to this the fact that Isreal is an allie of the US; seems we now have a pretty solid staging area if military force is needed in the region in the future. Not to mention it is much harder to hold us hostage over oil supplies. This puts us in a better negotiating position, wouldn't you say.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Just post any links you have, it'll be better than what we're working with now.

Read your history and recognize!!

-Bam

 

[r3volut!on]

Okay.

In my opinion, the fact that WMD were never found, and it looks more and more like no WMD will ever be found, the claim that our attack was based on the threat of WMD has been proven to be false. I don't think we need a court's decision to back that up. The only reasons the Bush Administration gave early last year for going to war were WMDs and the possible link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda = 9/11.

Neither of these claims have proven to be true. I won't use the word "lie" from here forward, but it's something along the same lines.

I honestly believe it's oil. And as a matter of fact, I have something to back that up with, even though my source isn't an AP affiliate or otherwise mainstream news source. It's interesting reading, nonetheless.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

 

[r3volut!on]

eric, what you said in your last post makes sense, and to an extent I agree with you.

My question is this: Why can't Bush just be honest about the reasons for invading Iraq?

 

[eric]

This was not representative of the US government or it's policies, all this shows was a rogue element of the military that lost control.

 

[eric]

I think the reason is simple. The American population wants security but does not want to know how it needs to be achieved. We love our beef in this country as long as it is cut up and nicely packaged for us in the supermarket, we don't want to think about how the cow was killed and then chopped up. I think the same concept applies here, as sad as that might sound.

 

[r3volut!on]

yeah....that sounds really sad....

the necessary revolution is to break away from a confined way of thinking, such as that which you mentioned.

we don't really need beef in our diets anyway.

 

[r3volut!on]

The American population wants security but does not want to know how it needs to be achieved.

Wow, eric, the more i read that the more i realize how profound a statement you just made.

To use the beef analogy a little further, how many people do you know who would still eat beef after spending a day working in a slaughterhouse?

Sure, a lot of people wouldn't mind, but I think most people would come away from it feeling a lot different about meat consumption.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by r3volut!on
eric, what you said in your last post makes sense, and to an extent I agree with you.

My question is this: Why can't Bush just be honest about the reasons for invading Iraq?

Nazi leader Herman Goering once remarked that it was easy to lead people into war, regardless of whether they resided within "a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship." All that was required, Goering argued, is for their government to "tell them they are being attacked, and [then] denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."

Pretty eerie quote there...

-Bam

 

[r3volut!on]

yeah...hits home just a wee bit...