USA - General discussion (Part 1)

[thegurgi]

i'm glad you did that then. you should have stated that before. But it's hard for me to not take things personal when you say things like what you said, especially in the way you put things with my name so well placed. I know that people don't agree with me, but i like to see people rationalise. I can easily see your point of view, but i wonder if you can see mine at all... i thought that's what debates were all about, getting a grasp of BOTH, not just one side of it all, cause i've heard very little understanding, just more and more arguments.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

My bad. That doesn't change the fact that US forces will prevail in Iraq, and democracy will be installed. I know it, and you know it. You may prefer anarchy, or the law "you use hand to steal, I cut hand" but unfortunately that won't happen.

US might prevail. And democracy might be installed. And if new gov't asks US to leave? then what?

Originally Posted by spyretto

If there's a risk that your highly-esteemed insurgents carry out blind and deadly attacks just to disrupt the elections, it's preferrable not to take place in those areas. Security comes first.

And not risking peopel electing peopel US might not like.

Originally Posted by spyretto

No, just the fact that you take for granted that Bush is lying in that particular situation.

He lied about Iraq before.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Absolutely, as there are no links of North Korea with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist outfit.

So? They have nukes, they have missiles, they have heavy arty in rangeof Seoul. They are a big threat.

Originally Posted by spyretto

What did your country do about it? As thegurgi very rightly said, better do something as well rather than bitching about the US not doing enough...or not doing anything...or if they do enough it's for their own self-interest. You can't have an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Sent help, sell weapons, took in refugees.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Does this mean that if there were more American casualties than Iraqui casulaties, that would be ok, and now it's not?

No.

Originally Posted by spyretto

How...lets see how. By adopting a hard-line anti-Western, anti American stance, collaborating with terrorists, further repressing their people with the implementation of extreme islamic law, killing and torturing, pretty much what Saddam was doing.

If Iranians did pretty much what Saddam did how were they 10 times worse?

Originally Posted by spyretto

There have been many errors in terms of American foreign policy in the past. Does this mean we are to accuse Rumsfeld for carrying out these attacks personally?

No. But taking responsibility for past actions would be good start.

Originally Posted by spyretto

And what did the rest of the world do about it...and finally...do you expect the US intelligence to have knowledge of everything that Saddam Hussein was doing? If you accuse them of incompetence or wrong decisions, that's another matter.

Yes, Us knew perfectlly well what Saddam was doing. Iran kept providing proof about gas being used. US had military ties with Iraq. they knew what was going on.

Originally Posted by spyretto

I don't blame them.

But you do blame them for doing something about it.

[Kate]

Nearly 400 tonnes of explosives go missing in Iraq: IAEA

VIENNA (AFP) - Nearly 400 tonnes of powerful explosives that could be used in conventional missiles, or as a trigger for nuclear devices, has disappeared from a military installation in Iraq (news - web sites) left unguarded by the US army, the International Atomic Energy Agency said. [...] "The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site." More...

Hhmmm... what was that Bush said about making the World and the U.S. safer? Now those explosives could be half-way to bin Laden's place for all we know. Let's hope they are not planning to show us the fire-works anytime soon.

[freddie]

Well right now would be just the right time for another attack, if they are planning one. At least if they want Bush re-elected. More attacks mean more fear. And fear is after all the foundation of the whole Bush campaign.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by luxxi

US might prevail. And democracy might be installed. And if new gov't asks US to leave? then what?

If new government asks for the US forces to leave, I gather they wouldn't be a puppet government which means that either the US' plan to install a puppet government would have failed or that their intention was not to install a puppet government in the first place. What will happen, we will see, I don't know..do you know?

And not risking peopel electing peopel US might not like.

This is one way to see it, and I've already stated the other way. Lets hope the US administration won't repeat the alleged mistakes of the past. Other than that there's nothing we can do, unless we want the war and misery to be prolonged indefinitely.

He lied about Iraq before.

He didn't lie per se, the intelligence info he was receiving about wmd was inconclusive. That doesn't mean Iraq's regime did not pose a threat. Wmd could still be found.

So? They have nukes, they have missiles, they have heavy arty in rangeof Seoul. They are a big threat.

I don't think they have the intention of using it. They're just trying to put more pressure on the US and its allies.

Sent help, sell weapons, took in refugees.

Who are you referring to?

If Iranians did pretty much what Saddam did how were they 10 times worse?

They were worse coz Chomeini's regime posed a direct threat back then, while Saddam became a thread afterwards. After he was helped by the US, if you like.

No. But taking responsibility for past actions would be good start.

That's right, but I'm not a defender of the US foreign policy. THe American people will make their decision in November 2nd. If the majority votes for Bush it seems that Rumsfiled's has done something right. No excuses...

Yes, Us knew perfectlly well what Saddam was doing. Iran kept providing proof about gas being used. US had military ties with Iraq. they knew what was going on.

I think they had an indication of what was going on but did not have the full picture. The full extent of what Saddam was doing was discovered later. And as I said US foreign policy is susceptible to many errors of judgement, some of which have been acknowledged but it's not easy when you have to decide which evil is the least evil.

But you do blame them for doing something about it.

It depends on what they do about it. Targetting their own people, kidnapping and murdering the innocents is not exactly what they should be doing , is it?

[/quote]

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by freddie

Well right now would be just the right time for another attack, if they are planning one. At least if they want Bush re-elected. More attacks mean more fear. And fear is after all the foundation of the whole Bush campaign.

Even now that Vladimir Putin has said the terrorists' aim is to prevent Bush's re-election?

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

He didn't lie per se, the intelligence info he was receiving about wmd was inconclusive. That doesn't mean Iraq's regime did not pose a threat. Wmd could still be found.

And the peopel who provided that itelligence kept their jobs. So I guess Bush doesn't see they did anything wrong.

Originally Posted by spyretto

I don't think they have the intention of using it. They're just trying to put more pressure on the US and its allies.

Then look at their statements.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Who are you referring to?

My country.

Originally Posted by spyretto

They were worse coz Chomeini's regime posed a direct threat back then, while Saddam became a thread afterwards. After he was helped by the US, if you like.

Direct threat to who? Name one country that Iran attacked.

Originally Posted by spyretto

I think they had an indication of what was going on but did not have the full picture. The full extent of what Saddam was doing was discovered later. And as I said US foreign policy is susceptible to many errors of judgement, some of which have been acknowledged but it's not easy when you have to decide which evil is the least evil.

What part of the picture were they missing? They were shown evidence Iraq is using CW. So what part of the picture US didn't have?

Originally Posted by spyretto

It depends on what they do about it. Targetting their own people, kidnapping and murdering the innocents is not exactly what they should be doing , is it?

No. But attacking occupation troops, colaborators and infrastructure is.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by luxxi

And the peopel who provided that itelligence kept their jobs. So I guess Bush doesn't see they did anything wrong.

Did they? Don't you read the news?

My country.

Which country is that? You sent troops and sold weapons?

Direct threat to who? Name one country that Iran attacked.

Who did North Korea attack? South Korea in the 50s? Are you using double standards or not?

What part of the picture were they missing? They were shown evidence Iraq is using CW. So what part of the picture US didn't have?

The mass murders and atrocities Saddam was comitting, I don't think they had full knowledge of the situation.

No. But attacking occupation troops, colaborators and infrastructure is.

Yes it is. They should focus in those attacks and stop killing innocent people, purposely.


[/quote]

[denial]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

Nearly 400 tonnes of explosives go missing in Iraq: IAEA

VIENNA (AFP) - Nearly 400 tonnes of powerful explosives that could be used in conventional missiles, or as a trigger for nuclear devices, has disappeared from a military installation in Iraq (news - web sites) left unguarded by the US army, the International Atomic Energy Agency said. [...] "The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site." More...

Hhmmm... what was that Bush said about making the World and the U.S. safer? Now those explosives could be half-way to bin Laden's place for all we know. Let's hope they are not planning to show us the fire-works anytime soon.

hmm....sound impossible .. can we even believe that news? I checked the date is Mon Oct 25, 4:01 PM ET

[Kate]

Originally Posted by denial

I checked the date is Mon Oct 25, 4:01 PM ET

So? Yahoo mostly publishes credible news, in fact I think Yahoo only publishes credible news. And this piece of information was cofirmed by the U.N. and is all over major internet news websites, check for yourself.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Did they? Don't you read the news?

I do. How many people were fired for provding wrong inteligence to Bush?

Originally Posted by spyretto

Which country is that?

Slovenia.

Originally Posted by spyretto

You sent troops and sold weapons?

No. we did other things I mentioned.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Who did North Korea attack? South Korea in the 50s? Are you using double standards or not?

Yes, N Korea attakced South Korea. And no, I'm not using double standards. YOu still failed to name single country Iran attacked. I'll make it easier for you. Name one country Iran attacked in this or previous century.

Originally Posted by spyretto

The mass murders and atrocities Saddam was comitting, I don't think they had full knowledge of the situation.

But they could punish Iraq for using CW. Of which they had full knowledge.

[haku]

Originally Posted by denial

hmm....sound impossible .. can we even believe that news?

Yeah, it's true, it's been confirmed by the IAEA.

It's not even really "news" actually, it did not happen a few days ago, it happened months ago.

When the US invaded Iraq, the US army did not secure the military installations of the Iraqi army. During the period of pillage that followed the invasion, the weapons stored in those unguarded military installations were stolen.

Since Iraq was under UN scrutiny, the IAEA had a complete listing of all weapons stored on Iraqi military installations, now those installations are totally empty, so the IAEA can say precisely that almost 400 tons of explosives are missing.

The daily bombings in Iraq are probably done with explosives coming form those stolen stocks.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by luxxi

I do. How many people were fired for provding wrong inteligence to Bush?

I far as I know, the head of the CIA on wmd was fired. What is your take on the subject anyway, do you maintain Saddam should have stayed in power?

Yes, N Korea attakced South Korea. And no, I'm not using double standards. YOu still failed to name single country Iran attacked. I'll make it easier for you. Name one country Iran attacked in this or previous century.

No, they didn't attack anybody but declaring themselves as enemies of the West and collaborating directly with terrorist groups must mean something, don't you think?

South Korea has been named part of the "axis of evil" by GW Bush ( along with Iran and Syria ). I don't think the US can open another front now that the Iraqui conflict has not been resolved yet. As I said, North Korea does not pose a direct threat for the time-being.

But they could punish Iraq for using CW. Of which they had full knowledge.

I think they did publicly condemn the use of CW and suspended diplomatic relations with Iraq as a result of it but if you expected them to have taken a more active role in supporting Iran in the the conflict, no that did not happen. So? The reason that Iraq ceased to be an ally to the US was the use of CW against the Kurds and the situation escalated until the invasion of Saddam in Kuwait.

[/quote]

[Kate]

Bush Chides Kerry for Iraq Explosives Talk

"A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief," Bush told supporters at an airport rally. "The senator is making wild charges about missing explosives," Bush said. [...] The president told the crowd that there was no way to know when or how the explosives — last seen by U.N. weapons inspectors in early 2003 — vanished. More...

Kerry hits right back at Bush on explosives row

"Mr President, for the sake of our brave men and women in uniform, for the sake of those troops who are in danger," Kerry said in Rochester, Minnesota sports arena packed with at least 10,000 supporters. "Because of your mistakes, you owe Americans real answers about what happened, not just political attacks. Your administration was warned, you were put on notice but you didn't put these explosives on priority lists, you didn't think it was important. You didn't give the troops the instructions they need, you didn't guard the ammunition dumps and now our troops are at greater risk." More...
_________________________

Interesting how Bush side-steps from straight answers... he's so full of lies. While the weapons just tend to be lying around in Iraq for terrorists to grab whenever they stumble upon them, the oil is guarded very well for sure - no one takes Bush's oil.

[spyretto]

oh you're gonna be oh so p.o. when Bush wins, won't u?

[freddie]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Even now that Vladimir Putin has said the terrorists' aim is to prevent Bush's re-election?

I don't know about that. One might even say that Bush was the best thing that happened to radical groups all over the world in a long time. George Bush is to extremist islamic groups what Richard Nixon was to Guerilla Viet-Cong fighters in Vietnam.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by freddie

I don't know about that. One might even say that Bush was the best thing that happened to radical groups all over the world in a long time. George Bush is to extremist islamic groups what Richard Nixon was to Guerilla Viet-Cong fighters in Vietnam.

Yeah, his statement suprised me too, since it's no secret that the terrorists need Bush as much as Bush needs the terrorists.

[Kate]

Originally Posted by spyretto

oh you're gonna be oh so p.o. when Bush wins, won't u?

Oh yeah.

[denial]

So? Yahoo mostly publishes credible news, in fact I think Yahoo only publishes credible news. And this piece of information was cofirmed by the U.N. and is all over major internet news websites, check for yourself

..interesting .... new threat .. I guess...

Interesting how Bush side-steps from straight answers... he's so full of lies. While the weapons just tend to be lying around in Iraq for terrorists to grab whenever they stumble upon them, the oil is guarded very well for sure - no one takes Bush's oil.

hmm .. I think his weakness is his concern about US economy .... to be the No 1 country in the world you need to be strong and rich.. and the pride.. the weakness ..

Originally Posted by spyretto

Yeah, his statement suprised me too, since it's no secret that the terrorists need Bush as much as Bush needs the terrorists.

hehehe.. cute one spy.. ever wonder whats make them need each other? ..or I mean .. who? or "whoS" actually?



sorry .. don't mind me .. tonight is my first school test after many years.. I'm a bit panic .. I just come to chill a bit.. go ahead guys!

[Kate]

An interesting survey for the press, http://survey.pollingpoint.com/surve...13&rid=2426797