It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "evil" U.S. and iraq

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:07 AM
link   
I can understand why the idea might hold some attraction, But me personally I want the president in the oval office doing his job, not on the floor of the house or the senate arguing about whos right and whos wrong when it comes to healthcare or welfare. As to debating national policy thats done every day by the members of the two houses of congress and its televised on cspan. Also I have an instictive mistrust of comittee made decisions in my experience compromise when used in a poltical context means that the worst of both positions is agreed on as a course of action. Idon't want leader who compromises want a leader who gets things done.
Btw my definition of a compromise is a situation where nobody gets what they either want or need.




posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:11 AM
link   
"A CEO of a large corporation does nothing but golf, do photo ops and give speeches"


Quongo that is possibly the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Its shows a lack of understanding of business that is staggering in its scope, and mindblowing in its depth.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
"A CEO of a large corporation does nothing but golf, do photo ops and give speeches"


Quongo that is possibly the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Its shows a lack of understanding of business that is staggering in its scope, and mindblowing in its depth.


why thank you.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Cargo- I dont know the manchester guardian, have never read it and cant comment on the accuracy of that statement, I do however know that it was used by micheal moore in his newest movie and as such I am extremly suspcious of it. Have those numbers been verified by any other publications?



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:25 AM
link   
yes it is from the new mm movie, i really enjoyed that movie for one reason:

It humanises the entire iraqi situation and shows it for what it is, through the eyes of human. It puts all the statistics, debates, government papers to shame.


but the fact is the president of the United States has a LOT more on his plate than the P.M. of australia.


It doesnt have to be this way, your president does not have to get involved in world affairs at that caliber. I think things would change in your country if he was ordered to participate in unscripted debate (bringing out his true adgenda, personality and views to the public on the spot) about your own countries issues for atleast one hour a day, then he can go and do whatever he does for the rest of the day, it seems at the moment he is untouchable and unquestioned by anyone besides the media (do you really trust the media?)



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:36 AM
link   
In terms of questioning the president, yes. The fact is ESPECIALLY with a republican president you can be certain that the media wants to discredit him and ask him tough questions. I know a lot of people don't trust the media on this site and whle there are many individual "reporters" I dont trust on the whole yes I do. The fact is any time you have that large a group of diverse people who are ALL looking to make a name for themselves by exposing a secret, secrets will be exposed. The truth is the government isn't very good at keeping secrets. The old joke/truism is that the only way two people in washington can keep a secret is if one of them is dead. While I agree that media moguls like rupert murdock and ted turner do have an interest in portraying stories in a certain light to advance thier own agenda I don't honestly believe they have much success in actually doing so. The reporters I've met are usually strong willed opinionated people who would consder it an insult to themselves to be somone else mouthpiece. From a purely logistical point of view I dont see HOW murdock or turner could possibly review and or edit every single story that goes out under ll of the varous media outlets they run and if they tried then I have no doubts that either a reporter at a competing company or a freelancer would break the story as a way of making a name for themselves.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   
mwm,

It was actually a front page Washington Post story from August 2001. If you would like to verify it, that should get you started.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:39 AM
link   
One other point squid, is that yes, the president does have to be involved in world affairs at that caiber. the U.S. is the largest economy in the world, commits more troops worldwide to peacekeeping missions than any other country, and gives more friegn aid than any other country. The president da*n well better be involved in world affairs.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Thanks cargo

I will start looking into that forthwith.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:44 AM
link   

The fact is any time you have that large a group of diverse people who are ALL looking to make a name for themselves by exposing a secret, secrets will be exposed.


indeed, and people will be confused and mislead in the resulting white noise and discrediting techniques. It started to happen here in Australia for the first time. It all seems really childish but regardless of that, the public eats it up without taking time to sit down and make sense of it all, i guess it all comes down to following your heart and what you feel is right.
I seriously think the world would be a much better place without the media, but then again everyone would be in the dark.


the president does have to be involved in world affairs at that caiber. the U.S. is the largest economy in the world, commits more troops worldwide to peacekeeping missions than any other country, and gives more friegn aid than any other country.


I think its safe for him to ease off a little bit. The ideal superpower for me would be a country that helps people suffering regardless of their religous or political opinions that also respects those peoples rights to sort out their own problems for themselves and to be taken advantage of.
Taking sides is and allways will be wrong in my opinion.

Its sad that money now controls the world, economic disaster means death by starvation or war these days, this is not the way it should be. And it should not be enforced upon others.


[edit on 30-6-2004 by electric squid carpet]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by electric squid carpet

The fact is any time you have that large a group of diverse people who are ALL looking to make a name for themselves by exposing a secret, secrets will be exposed.


indeed, and people will be confused and mislead in the resulting white noise and discrediting techniques. It started to happen here in Australia for the first time. It all seems really childish but regardless of that, the public eats it up without taking time to sit down and make sense of it all, i guess it all comes down to following your heart and what you feel is right.
I seriously think the world would be a much better place without the media, but then again everyone would be in the dark.


True but most people would be misled and confused by anything. Although I do have a problem with reporters including thier opinions in the story. Journalistic integrity used to mean reporting the facts without bias which is something I would like to see come back into fashion.



[edit on 30-6-2004 by mwm1331]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   
mwm:

While I agree that media moguls like rupert murdock and ted turner do have an interest in portraying stories in a certain light to advance thier own agenda I don't honestly believe they have much success in actually doing so.


Um, you're living proof that it DOES work. God's people, God's country, Rah Rah Rah, USA rocks, blah blah blah.


It doesn't work on people who get their news from different sources, but it works on people who only watch very few news channels. How can you know you're being misled if you don't even know the other side?



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Jakomo I have never seen a mainstream news media outlet, paper, or report say that Americans are gods people. I believe that because its a personal belief ,thats the way my parents raised me. To love my god, my country, and my family. I was raised to be proud of my country and of the things we have achieved. I was raised to believe that freedom is a gift from god. I was raised to believe that America was another gift from god. You want to disagree, thats your choice, and god gave you the right to make it. But I fail to see how my personal beliefs and upbringing has anything to do with the media. If you can't make a coherant point, or make use of logical reasoning then I would request that you stay off my thread as there is a minimum intelligence requirement. If however you can use logic and reason as the tools they are then by all means prove it.

edited twice for spelling errors
[edit on 30-6-2004 by mwm1331]

[edit on 30-6-2004 by mwm1331]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   
mwm:

But I fail to see how my personal beliefs and upbringing has anything to do with the media. If you can't make a coherant point, or make use of logical reasoning then I would request that you stay off my thread as there is a minimum intelligence requirement. If however you can use logic and reason as the tools they are then by all means prove it.


First off, questioning my logic or stating there's some kind of "minimum intelligence requirement" is not a particularly good way to prove your point.

Secondly, your "beliefs" about your country happen to coincide pretty closely with the CNN/FOX party line.

from your original post on this thread:

The fact that they can do so without fear of being seized in the middle of the night and tortured as they would have been had they said the same thing about saddam is PROOF that the U.S. forces are the good guys.


Actually, Iraqis ARE being seized in the middle of the night by Marines on "raids", and, um, wasn't there a huge torture scandal in Iraq in the past few weeks? I know it's not covered that much on all the major US networks (or if it is it's a 90 second story followed by the latest breaking news in the Laci Peterson case).


Hundreds of new newspapers have been formed since the takeover most of which have been dedicated to bad mouthing America, but how many of these people would have been willing to do the same under the old regime?


Papers that are anti-American have been forcibly closed by the Coalition. Not much freedom of the press, sorry, it's been on the BBC, CBC, and AP and Reuters newswires.


But there is more opportunity in raq today than at any time in the last 25 years and growing all the time


Yeah, but not for Iraqis. Unemployment is still rampant and US corporations are getting the bulk of the reconstruction deals.


As a direct result of the U.S. liberation Iraq will be a FAR less fertile ground for terrorist recruters in the future.


This is almost too laughable to even address. What exactly is this based on, because it's definitely not the reality of the last 2 years.


People say that the U.S. wants to make Iraq an American colony and yet we have turned over legal authority to the Iraqui interim government a full 2 days early.


Pfft. The new leader is a former CIA man, most of the new government is handpicked by the US, and they have no military authority. How exactly is that "sovereignty"?

These questions are addressed in the international media, but very rarely in the US mainstream media.

If you believe only what you see on CNN and FOX, you may believe that the Invasion of Iraq was necessary and has been a success and the handover is real.

All are lies.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Hey MWM 113:

I'm a little confused by your postings about this "God" of yours.

Which "god" are you referring to, which you seem to feel somehow takes any kind of special interest in "America" ?

Here's one of your quotes: "I believe that the Constitution and the Bill of rights though written by men were inspired by god. In the book of genesis when speaking of the fall of Adam states that God knew he would taste of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and yet allowed him the free will to choose wrong. Free will was given to men by god himself and the U.S. was the first country to recognise and protect that gift as a central basis of the countries existance. So yes I believe America is GODS COUNTRY. "


Are you referring one particualr god or perhaps all of the several clan gods of ancient Israel (YHWH, or Yahweh or Yahweh Elohim or El Shaddai, or El Elyon etc.) who wanted all the Amalekites exterminated and hated the Girgi#es to pieces?

If so, what on earth would ever lead you to suppose that the bloodthirsty, racist, sexist, contradictory and, well..., moody clan god (whose "chosen people" had to roll the Urim and Thummim dice in the desert to find a way out) has ANYTHING to do with America, whose "western style" laws are based on those of ancient Greece and Rome via the common laws of Great Britain?

Why do you think people out here in the "West" should worship some obscure middle eastern clan god who likes to tell people to make Midianite Bronze Snake Idols and Put them Up on Poles to save them from snake bites? (Numbers 21:5). Long Live Nehushtan!

How could the US Founding Fathers be "inspired" by the "clan-god of Israel" you seem to feel , somehow, is interested in "America" when the writers of the "Hebrew Bible" didn't even know this continent even existed
(our Founding fathers were mostly made up of 33 degree Masons who believed not in any Israelitish desert clan gods like YHWH but rather in a Single Universalist Bi-Sexual Deity laka the Goat-headed god "Jabaalon sometimes known as "the Supreme Architect of the Universe/Providence" who does NOT seem to take such an interest in things like, well, "sowing diverse seeds in the same field: it is Abomination!" etc. )

The writers of your Hebrew bible clearly had no interest or knowlege of what we call America today: they were too worried about thier own internal affairs, and far too busy genociding the Cannanites reflected in the Extermination (Hitler-Like) Policies in the book of Joshua ---or maybe they were just too busy thinking there was water above the Dome (i.e. to account for a Blue Sky, or that the Sun and Stars were created AFTER Vegetation in Genesis chapter 1) to worry about someone like little old us.

Maybe your'e a little rusty on your unpointed paleo-Hebrew language skills and need a refresher course? Certainly your American-English leaves a lot to be desired....

By the way, "existence" is spelled with eeees not an "a".



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
mwm:

But I fail to see how my personal beliefs and upbringing has anything to do with the media. If you can't make a coherant point, or make use of logical reasoning then I would request that you stay off my thread as there is a minimum intelligence requirement. If however you can use logic and reason as the tools they are then by all means prove it.


First off, questioning my logic or stating there's some kind of "minimum intelligence requirement" is not a particularly good way to prove your point.

Secondly, your "beliefs" about your country happen to coincide pretty closely with the CNN/FOX party line.


Your first fallacy is assuming knowledge of my news sources and beliefs on the incidents dscussed below. Knowledge assumed is by nature of unknown accuracy. It is neither logical nor rational to assume that you know anything about me definitively as this is an anonymous message board.



from your original post on this thread:

The fact that they can do so without fear of being seized in the middle of the night and tortured as they would have been had they said the same thing about saddam is PROOF that the U.S. forces are the good guys.


Actually, Iraqis ARE being seized in the middle of the night by Marines on "raids", and, um, wasn't there a huge torture scandal in Iraq in the past few weeks? I know it's not covered that much on all the major US networks (or if it is it's a 90 second story followed by the latest breaking news in the Laci Peterson case).


To say that Iraquis are being seized in the middle of the night is a statement which is accurate due to its broad generality. I could say just as accuratly that the french government is seizing frenchmen in the middle of the night. The importantce here is not in generalities but in the specifics of the situation, Which Iraquis are being seized? Why are they being seized? Are they being seized in accordance with law? If so whose law? Iraqui?American?international? Generality is the opposite of precision of precision and precision is a prerequisite for both ration and logic.
The torture scandal was a outrage worldwide and I was more ofended than most as a result of the love of my country not in spite of it. But to say that the injustices comitted at abu ghraib by 6 disturbed and criminal individuals is in any way of the same order of magitude in repugnance as the events which took place at the same location under the former regimes direction does, I feel show a lack of both perspective and understanding. In my opinion its akin to placing the holocaust and the 1930s bonus march debacle on the same scale. The torture under Saddams government was directed, approved, and funded by the state. The recent events in abu ghraib have not in any way been shown to be systemic or sponsered by the military or U.S. government. If you have even a shred of evidence that they were than either FOX or CNN would gladly pay you 500,000 or so to come forward as it would be good for ratings. As would any other news organisation world wide.
Your assumption that I recieve my news from the "US networks" is also incorrect. I currently work in europe and have traveled to Berlin, Amsterdam, Budapest, London and Prague in the last month alone. In point of fact I have been relying on the european news agencies for the news for the last 23 months. I have been in europe for bettter than 88% of the time since August of 02.
Again assumption is the enemy of both reason and logic


Hundreds of new newspapers have been formed since the takeover most of which have been dedicated to bad mouthing America, but how many of these people would have been willing to do the same under the old regime?



Papers that are anti-American have been forcibly closed by the Coalition. Not much freedom of the press, sorry, it's been on the BBC, CBC, and AP and Reuters newswires.


One Iraqui newspaper has been shut down for 60 dys. The paper is Al Hawza whch is published by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The same man whose militia killed numerous civilians as well as soldiers in Najaf. The same man who is still a prime suspect in the murder of a fellow shiite cleric. A man who has more than once called for american blood and whos paper has consitantly distorted facts in order to recruit new members for an extremist organisation known as the Medhi Gross misrepresentation of the facts in order to incite violence is not allowed by any country in the world. However outside of this one incident I have seen no evidence presented that it is happening n an ongoing and or sytemic basis. Your use of the plural form of paper seems to be unwaranted. One event does not comprise a trend while the fact remains that many many new newspapers have been founded since the regime change.


But there is more opportunity in raq today than at any time in the last 25 years and growing all the time


Yeah, but not for Iraqis. Unemployment is still rampant and US corporations are getting the bulk of the reconstruction deals.

This is a country in the middle of a major transition, whose infrastructure has been severly neglected for more than 10 years. Though the coalition tried to limit the damage war is ugly destructive thing. In addition the terroist attacks mandated that the coalition focus thier resources on rebuilding the countries various security aparatus literlly from the top down as anyone who had been in power previously was by definition unsuitable for the job. American corporations getting the bulk of the reconstructon contracts because so few of the iraquis have the financial, techncal or logistical ability to do so. However Like all economies as the infrastructure improves, the economy will improve which will lead to rapidly flling unemployment rates and more jobs for the people.


As a direct result of the U.S. liberation Iraq will be a FAR less fertile ground for terrorist recruters in the future.


This is almost too laughable to even address. What exactly is this based on, because it's definitely not the reality of the last 2 years.

That is the first correct statement you have made. My assesment is based on the last two years, the current stae of the country, and projections for the next two years. The U.S government has so far kept all of its promises to the Iraqui people. They will vote in a freely elected government in january of 2005. At that time the Interim government will step down and hand over power for good. Whle I have no doubts that terrorism will get worse until then, I believe that once the Iraquis see that they are in control of ther own destiny many who now have extremist sympathes will, quite frankly, lose interest. Nor can I blame the Iraquis for not trusting the coalition the last 25-30 years have if nothng else instilled a deep fear and mistrust of the government and they expect merica to be the same. To qoute an old song "meet the new boss same as the old boss" In adition the only people they have been able to trust are the clerics and many of them mistrust the Coalition. However once they see that we keep our word things will improve at a rapid pace. You are predisposed to believe that America is on the side of the devils while I am predisposed to beleve tht my nation, people, and government are on the side of the angels. While I agree that mistakes have been made you have yet to show evidence of either malice.


People say that the U.S. wants to make Iraq an American colony and yet we have turned over legal authority to the Iraqui interim government a full 2 days early.


Pfft. The new leader is a former CIA man, most of the new government is handpicked by the US, and they have no military authority. How exactly is that "sovereignty"?



The makeup of the government was chosen to insure that a diverse array of Iraqui viepoints was addressed in the transition. Agian this is only the secnd stage in the proceess, your criticism at this point, on the lack of elected government is premature.


These questions are addressed in the international media, but very rarely in the US mainstream media.

If you believe only what you see on CNN and FOX, you may believe that the Invasion of Iraq was necessary and has been a success and the handover is real.

All are lies.quote]

I believe I have already addresed that point.

In summation you have consitantly projected isolated situation and unique circumstances onto the whole. While in some situations that is a valid method for determining reality, without the abillity to show multiple examples it also easily distorts perception of reality.



[edit on 30-6-2004 by mwm1331]


E_T

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
www.cnn.com...

www.cnn.com...


"What I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law,"

Reference to Homeland Security and Patriotic Acts?


Opps, at the same time I found little about one thing Bush used to justify attack.
www.cnn.com...

[edit on 30-6-2004 by E_T]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
mwm1331:

To say that Iraquis are being seized in the middle of the night is a statement which is accurate due to its broad generality. I could say just as accuratly that the french government is seizing frenchmen in the middle of the night. The importantce here is not in generalities but in the specifics of the situation


Okay let me make it clearer. You said, The fact that they can do so without fear of being seized in the middle of the night and tortured as they would have been had they said the same thing about saddam is PROOF that the U.S. forces are the good guys..

Well the FACT is they ARE being seized in the middle of the night. You didn't say "certain" ones, YOU made the generality, and it turns out to be a FALSE generality. Not only do they still have to fear nighttime raids but torture as well.



. But to say that the injustices comitted at abu ghraib by 6 disturbed and criminal individuals is in any way of the same order of magitude in repugnance as the events which took place at the same location under the former regimes direction does, I feel show a lack of both perspective and understanding.


To believe that only 6 people were involved in the torture scandal ESPECIALLY after all the recently de-classified memos shows to me that YOU have the lack of perspective and understanding.

And comparing the USA's conduct to Saddam is not exactly the greatest comparison you can make. Why don't yopu just say, "Okay so we tortured and killed a few prisoners but we didn't gas them like Hitler".

Comparing the US' conduct to a dictatorial regime is not a fair comparison.


Your assumption that I recieve my news from the "US networks" is also incorrect. I currently work in europe and have traveled to Berlin, Amsterdam, Budapest, London and Prague in the last month alone.


So how do you not know about all the news reports on the fact that the torture scandal went far higher up than just 6 single offenders? How do you NOT know that this is far from an isolated incident?

www.taipeitimes.com...

www.disinfopedia.org...

abcnews.go.com...


In addition the terroist attacks mandated that the coalition focus thier resources on rebuilding the countries various security aparatus literlly from the top down as anyone who had been in power previously was by definition unsuitable for the job.


And yet there is hardly ANY Iraqi National Guard yet, the police are woefully undertrained and the Iraqi Army is laughable. After 2 years of Occupation. And don't give me the "those who were in power previously are unsuitable" because there are former Ba'athists all over the new Iraqi government.


American corporations getting the bulk of the reconstructon contracts because so few of the iraquis have the financial, techncal or logistical ability to do so.


Who did they rely on for all this help before the USA invaded? Themselves. Given a fair chance, of course they could rebuild, it's naive to think that the USA is better at fixing Iraq than the IRAQI PEOPLE.


You are predisposed to believe that America is on the side of the devils while I am predisposed to beleve tht my nation, people, and government are on the side of the angels. While I agree that mistakes have been made you have yet to show evidence of either malice.


I am predisposed to look at the situation in a realistic manner. And the evidence is in the news every single day.

The USA is not on the side of the Iraqi people, they are on the side of the US. Thus, they don't even count civilian casualties, and when it comes to the handover, they pull it off as a SURPRISE to the entire country and the world. Hey Muhammed, wake up, we're free as of 15 minutes ago.

As if it's a birthday party that needs to be rescheduled because of rain.


In summation you have consitantly projected isolated situation and unique circumstances onto the whole. While in some situations that is a valid method for determining reality, without the abillity to show multiple examples it also easily distorts perception of reality.


Um, I AM the one bringing up valid points, you've shown no multiple examples of any FACTS except your penchant for slapping big words into a sentence.


Oh and P.S., If there is a God, he wants to be kept out of this mess and doesn't appreciate people claiming to know His Mind and has NO love for people who say they are exclusively His Chosen.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
mwm1331:

To say that Iraquis are being seized in the middle of the night is a statement which is accurate due to its broad generality. I could say just as accuratly that the french government is seizing frenchmen in the middle of the night. The importantce here is not in generalities but in the specifics of the situation


Okay let me make it clearer. You said, The fact that they can do so without fear of being seized in the middle of the night and tortured as they would have been had they said the same thing about saddam is PROOF that the U.S. forces are the good guys..

Well the FACT is they ARE being seized in the middle of the night. You didn't say "certain" ones, YOU made the generality, and it turns out to be a FALSE generality. Not only do they still have to fear nighttime raids but torture as well.

My response- You seem to be unable to make a distiction between legal arrest of suspected criminals (which is what the U.S. does) and the immoral arrest of those whos only crime is a dissenting opinion. Again this shows a lack of understanding. It would seem that your prejudices have made you unable to comprehend the truth.



. But to say that the injustices comitted at abu ghraib by 6 disturbed and criminal individuals is in any way of the same order of magitude in repugnance as the events which took place at the same location under the former regimes direction does, I feel show a lack of both perspective and understanding.


To believe that only 6 people were involved in the torture scandal ESPECIALLY after all the recently de-classified memos shows to me that YOU have the lack of perspective and understanding.

And comparing the USA's conduct to Saddam is not exactly the greatest comparison you can make. Why don't yopu just say, "Okay so we tortured and killed a few prisoners but we didn't gas them like Hitler".

Comparing the US' conduct to a dictatorial regime is not a fair comparison.



Your assumption that I recieve my news from the "US networks" is also incorrect. I currently work in europe and have traveled to Berlin, Amsterdam, Budapest, London and Prague in the last month alone.


So how do you not know about all the news reports on the fact that the torture scandal went far higher up than just 6 single offenders? How do you NOT know that this is far from an isolated incident?

www.taipeitimes.com...

www.disinfopedia.org...

abcnews.go.com...


My response- Yes I was aware of these allegations however at this point that is all they are. Alegtions of guilt are not proof of guilt.You are aware of the difference between one who is charged and one who is convcted are you not? Also thank you as the source documentation you provided has helped to prove my point. While under Saddams regime these types of offenses were ordered by the government under the U.S. coalition the allegations are being investigated by criminal nvestigators with an eye towards prosecution if these charges are born out. And no it is not fair to compare the U.S. to a dictatorial regime which I why I take offense when you do.



In addition the terroist attacks mandated that the coalition focus thier resources on rebuilding the countries various security aparatus literlly from the top down as anyone who had been in power previously was by definition unsuitable for the job.


And yet there is hardly ANY Iraqi National Guard yet, the police are woefully undertrained and the Iraqi Army is laughable. After 2 years of Occupation. And don't give me the "those who were in power previously are unsuitable" because there are former Ba'athists all over the new Iraqi government.

My response- First I think that the iraqui police, army, and national guardsmen who put thier lives on the line for thier country every day would be insulted by those statements. Second while there are some ba'athist in the new government not all members of the party were either high ranking nor criminals In many ways these people may be compared to Max Schmeling who while officially a member of the Nazi party was in no way in line with thier views or responsible for thier crimes.


American corporations getting the bulk of the reconstructon contracts because so few of the iraquis have the financial, techncal or logistical ability to do so.


Who did they rely on for all this help before the USA invaded? Themselves. Given a fair chance, of course they could rebuild, it's naive to think that the USA is better at fixing Iraq than the IRAQI PEOPLE.


My response- Actually prior to this the people relied on the government. The lack of heavy machinery and the lack of funds at the present time however is a major hinderence to construction.



You are predisposed to believe that America is on the side of the devils while I am predisposed to beleve tht my nation, people, and government are on the side of the angels. While I agree that mistakes have been made you have yet to show evidence of either malice.


I am predisposed to look at the situation in a realistic manner. And the evidence is in the news every single day.

My response- And yet you have yet to provde any evidence

The USA is not on the side of the Iraqi people, they are on the side of the US. Thus, they don't even count civilian casualties, and when it comes to the handover, they pull it off as a SURPRISE to the entire country and the world. Hey Muhammed, wake up, we're free as of 15 minutes ago.

As if it's a birthday party that needs to be rescheduled because of rain.

My response- The interim government was reafy early why not handover power early?


In summation you have consitantly projected isolated situation and unique circumstances onto the whole. While in some situations that is a valid method for determining reality, without the abillity to show multiple examples it also easily distorts perception of reality.


Um, I AM the one bringing up valid points, you've shown no multiple examples of any FACTS except your penchant for slapping big words into a sentence.

My response- You have consistantly made unfounded accusation and when challeged have produced no evidence of your claims. I do not need to show proof to refute your claims I need only show your lack of evidentiary support. It is up to you as the accuser to provide evidence which you have so far failed to do. You continously claim a systemic and state sponsored regime of terror exists in Iraq which is supported by the highest levels of U.S. government yet you are unable to provide any proof beyond a few isolated instances and outright exaggeration.
Oh and P.S., If there is a God, he wants to be kept out of this mess and doesn't appreciate people claiming to know His Mind and has NO love for people who say they are exclusively His Chosen.

My response- First you say that he does not appreciate those who claim to know his mind and then you state his opinions? Good job even for you, to contradict yourself not within a paragraph but within a single sentace is truly an achievement.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331

My response- You have consistantly made unfounded accusation and when challeged have produced no evidence of your claims. I do not need to show proof to refute your claims I need only show your lack of evidentiary support. .

My response- First you say that he does not appreciate those who claim to know his mind and then you state his opinions? Good job even for you, to contradict yourself not within a paragraph but within a single sentace is truly an achievement.


Congratulations you have shown up Jakomo. Problem is he will never overcome his problems with denying ignorance so this text smack down does not dent his amnetsy international dillusion.

He is the special olympics of the WOT forum.

You can spend pages trying to show him the evidence of Syria's dubious dealings with Iraq and get nothing but the same regurgitated knee jerk reactions.

One momment he is using David Kay as evidence and then claiming the man is wrong when you use his own proof against him.

Reallly its a shame when your thread gets hijacked by the unstopable moral superiority of the canadian branch of amnesty international.

If this is a court room I think you have fufilled your burden of proof mwwm.

I now have one less WATS vote.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join