A Soldier Posted September 3, 2004 Report Posted September 3, 2004 ps: it's in french so i won't post any sources but i'll supply it if asked.Yeah please
Bacchus Posted September 3, 2004 Report Posted September 3, 2004 radio-canada c'est très bien fait je trouve. Clair, bref et concis
A Soldier Posted September 3, 2004 Report Posted September 3, 2004 merci. Je regarderai ça quand j'aurais fini mon CEGEP aujourd'hui
Bacchus Posted September 3, 2004 Report Posted September 3, 2004 Here's another one also: Réseau voltaire It's well do-*BAD WORD*-ented and although they're good researchers and do-*BAD WORD*-entalists, it might be biased so i suggest caution when reading those articles...but it's a great read anyway
Jimster Posted September 3, 2004 Report Posted September 3, 2004 I have been seeing this on tv over in the UK. Bush is a nut case. He has, as far as i know, Never held a gun it war. His powerful speaches are all he has to offer, He is an actor more than a leader. When, "whats his name" says that he wants bush to decide on action and not the UN. That is the most stupidest thing i have heard. The west would be a far safer place if bush was not there, There would not be the problem in Iraq. I could go on forever. Time for a change. Bush, time to go. Blair, Time to go.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 5, 2004 Report Posted September 5, 2004 When, "whats his name" says that he wants bush to decide on action and not the UN. That is the most stupidest thing i have heard. The west would be a far safer place if bush was not there, There would not be the problem in Iraq. I could go on forever. Time for a change. Bush, time to go. Blair, Time to go. Yeah the west would be tons safer. I mean 3000 people didn't during September 11'th or anything. We should have just continued the old method of letting other people deal with it. Yeah, there would be NO problem in Iraq whatsoever, had we not removed Saddam. It would still be a land of cupcakes and roses, ran by a wonderful leader who had world peace in mind. Agree with how Bush is handling things or not, if you think we'd be any Safer had we not took an active stance at dealing with terror, you're -*BAD WORD*-ing Nuts. If we would have went to the UN, we'd still be waiting for authorization to act to this day. The UN does nothing but hand out resolutions that they have no intentions of carrying out, if you don't believe me just look at the track record of resolutions handed out to Saddam. In 1992 the UN gave Saddam a resolution to "cease inhumane treatment of Iraqi citizens , or face severe concequences". Man, that sure did work. Incase you still cant figure it out, here's a hint. Saddam didn't give a flying -*BAD WORD*- about the UN, and neither do the terrorists. UN or not, American forces or not, Action had to be taken, the old way of sitting back and hoping people comply to resolutions no longer works.
Vile Requiem Posted September 5, 2004 Report Posted September 5, 2004 TWO PROTESTORS NEARLY MADE IT TO BUSH IN HIS OWN CONVENTION, IN THE MOST WELL GUARDED CITY/BUILDING IN AMERICAN HISTORY How are we safer again?
MonteZuma Posted September 5, 2004 Report Posted September 5, 2004 When, "whats his name" says that he wants bush to decide on action and not the UN.Yeah...The Terminator (who the -*BAD WORD*- can spell Schwarzenegger?) said words to that effect. I thought it was ridiculous too. It is part of a republican campaign to smear the UN. I hope I'm mistaken, but it seems to be working in the US. Outside the US though (even in 'willing' countries), I think the UN has as much or more support now than it did before the Iraq debacle began.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 5, 2004 Report Posted September 5, 2004 TWO PROTESTORS NEARLY MADE IT TO BUSH IN HIS OWN CONVENTION, IN THE MOST WELL GUARDED CITY/BUILDING IN AMERICAN HISTORY How are we safer again? You're right Vile, I mean there's practically NO difference between a regular old american citizens that want to yell words, and terrorists carrying bombs/guns wanting to shoot someone or blow them up. If someone can get through posing as a convention supporter, carrying no weapon, then it only stands to reason someone strapped with a bomb, carrying a knife, or a gun could get through too. Wake up.
MonteZuma Posted September 5, 2004 Report Posted September 5, 2004 Agree with how Bush is handling things or not, if you think we'd be any Safer had we not took an active stance at dealing with terror, you're -*BAD WORD*-ing Nuts. If we would have went to the UN, we'd still be waiting for authorization to act to this day. The UN does nothing but hand out resolutions that they have no intentions of carrying out, if you don't believe me just look at the track record of resolutions handed out to Saddam.Iraq was inconsequential in the period between Sept 2001 and the invasion. They had no military, no WMDs, they had no-fly zones, they had weapons and nuclear inspectors from around the world, they had an international naval blockade surrounding them - and this was all maintained by a relatively small number of soldiers and some political manouvering and coercion (of the Iraqi government and other governments - to support the sanctions, etc) at relatively low cost. The situation now is that massive amounts of men, machinary and money are being chanelled into Iraq. Terrorist activity has increased - in Iraq and world-wide. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts are dead. Thousands of citizens in other countries are also being killed. Those resources and the good will of dozens of nations have been squandered - for what? How has Iraq been a success in the war against terror? It has been an unmitigated disaster and a net drain on the war on terror.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 5, 2004 Report Posted September 5, 2004 The situation now is that massive amounts of men, machinary and money are being chanelled into Iraq. Terrorist activity has increased - in Iraq and world-wide. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts are dead. Thousands of citizens in other countries are also being killed. Those resources and the good will of dozens of nations have been squandered - for what? And why do you think all this is happening? Mabye because they want the US out of Iraq? Why would they want that? The US going into Iraq didn't *cause* any terrorism.. the terrorism was already there. It's like trying to cure cancer. The patient has cancer and doesn't feel sick at all. The doctor discoveres the cancer and put the patient on kemo. The patient gets really sick and weak because of the kemo, but eventually defeats the cancer. Under your mindset, the doctor should have NEVER attacked the cancer, the patient got so sick due to the treatment that the doctor caused the sickness, not the cancer.. See the point? Yeah Monte, we coulda just sat back and not done anything like we had been doing all along, but we all know what that got us. OF COURSE TERRORISM IS GOING TO INCREASE ONCE WE ATTACK THEM. Thats how things works. Though i've said this before and it went on deaf ears. I suppose everyone truely believes that invading Iraq caused terrorism.. it obviously wasn't around before we removed Saddam...
MonteZuma Posted September 7, 2004 Report Posted September 7, 2004 The US going into Iraq didn't *cause* any terrorism.. the terrorism was already there.Iraq was not a hot-bed of terrorist activity. Now it is. Terrorism elsewhere continues unabated. To use your cancer analogy: Iraq was benign. Al Qaida is not. You need to attack the aggressive tumour in order to save the patient. You don't need to use aggressive interventions to fight a benign tumour. We've been fighting in Iraq when the real problem is elsewhere and unchecked. I'll ask the question again so that you can ignore it again: How has the invasion of Iraq been a success in the war on terror?
Dr.Worthless Posted September 7, 2004 Report Posted September 7, 2004 Iraq was not a hot-bed of terrorist activity. Now it is.How do you know it wasn't? Do you agree or disagree with the statement that terrorist activity is active in every islamic middle eastern country? If you said yes to that statement, how can you NOT include Iraq in with it? There is no substancial evidence that Terrorists weren't using Iraq. Saddam openly supported suicide bombers with government stipends. Well known Al-Qaeda members have also been confirmed in baghdad. Saying Iraq had No terrorist activity what-so-ever is !@#$%^&*anine. Terrorism elsewhere continues unabated. HUH!? Countless captures all across Europe, in Britain, etc says otherwise. I'll ask the question again so that you can ignore it again: How has the invasion of Iraq been a success in the war on terror?A.) It removed a terrorist supporter from running a country.B.) Theoritically a democratic government in the middle of the middle east will provide stability. Not Immediate, its going to take time. But ANY form of government other than a sadistic madman terrorising his own citizens and invading/threatening other countries is far times better.C.) We for sure don't know all there is to know about Saddam's dealings with terrorism or any other organization, its impossible to. To use your cancer analogy: Iraq was benign. Al Qaida is not. You need to attack the aggressive tumour in order to save the patient. You don't need to use aggressive interventions to fight a benign tumour. We've been fighting in Iraq when the real problem is elsewhere and unchecked. I really do find it amazing that people are just willing to write off a madman like Saddam. At no point was he benign, by his past record he would have obtained weapons (if he didn't already have them) and used them as leverage. If you don't think he would have, you're insane, just as insane as Saddam. How often do you believe a saddistic person who's killed thousands and initiated war 2 seperate times can just all of a sudden become peaceful and non-threatening. The answer should be Never.
MonteZuma Posted September 7, 2004 Report Posted September 7, 2004 How do you know it wasn't [a hotbed of terrorist activity]?Ummm because Iraq was the focus of over 10 years of media scrutiny before the invasion and nothing has been found to link Iraq with International terrorism. I think at most Saddam might have given some money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. If you think stopping that was worth tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and over a thousand US lives then maybe you have a point....pfft. Do you agree or disagree with the statement that terrorist activity is active in every islamic middle eastern country? If you said yes to that statement, how can you NOT include Iraq in with it?No. And in any case the hijackers in the US came from mainly from Saudi Arabia - a US ally. Al Qaida was based in Afghanistan, but Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. What has Iraq got to do with it? Would you suggest an invasion of South Africa because Robert Mugabe (the President of Zimbabwe) is a tyrant? Can you show me a link between recent terror strikes and Iraq? There is no substancial evidence that Terrorists weren't using Iraq.There is no evidence that they were. You'd think that before your president commits billions of dollars and thousands of lives to a war he would get his facts straight first. Saddam openly supported suicide bombers with government stipends. Well known Al-Qaeda members have also been confirmed in baghdad. Saying Iraq had No terrorist activity what-so-ever is !@#$%^&*anine.Iraq was not a threat. Saudi Arabia is more of a threat than Iraq. We should do something about Saudi Arabia - and I don't mean invade it. Invading and destabilising a lame-duck country is asinine.
Guest Recombo Posted September 7, 2004 Report Posted September 7, 2004 Actually, dispersing the Taliban in Afghanistan created a more immense after-math problem then Iraq, however, Saddam had already committed a crime by attacking an even lamer-duck country - Kuwait. Having violated numerous no-fly zone borders, creating a centralized finance ring, and blocking UN inspections was enough. Cooperation is necessary as a means to maintaining peace. Saddam did not cooperate with anyone, and as a result, lost.
MonteZuma Posted September 7, 2004 Report Posted September 7, 2004 Great. GWB won a pissing contest against Saddam. Now what?
Guest Recombo Posted September 8, 2004 Report Posted September 8, 2004 Well, hopefully someone can figure out a way to exit Iraq. We all know that the biggest flaw about getting into Iraq was the lack of planning out ways to get out while also accomplishing the objectives. That's a problem any nation has with war.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 8, 2004 Report Posted September 8, 2004 Great. GWB won a pissing contest against Saddam. Now what? Create a stable democratic government and ally in the heart of the middle east. Mabye you can agree that a non-saddam government whos friendly to the US in the middle east would be beneficial to stoping terrorist?
MonteZuma Posted September 8, 2004 Report Posted September 8, 2004 Great. GWB won a pissing contest against Saddam. Now what? Create a stable democratic government and ally in the heart of the middle east. Mabye you can agree that a non-saddam government whos friendly to the US in the middle east would be beneficial to stoping terrorist? I wish it were that easy. Saudi Arabia has stable government and is friendly to the US and yet in spawned Al Qaida and the September 11 attackers. Israel has a stable and democratic government in the middle east and yet it is a source of terrorism too.
Aileron Posted September 8, 2004 Report Posted September 8, 2004 I wouldn't be willing to call the Sadui government stable. They require so many other groups to prop themselves up. If the Saudi government was standing by itself it would rapidly collapse.
TWIN Posted September 18, 2004 Report Posted September 18, 2004 Lol... Vote Bush For World War Vote Kerry To Bring The War To America <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Vote kerry if you want babies murdered and slaughtered because he feels it's ok not to take responsibility for actions. Vote bush if you want a crippling deficit which is going to haunt us for generations to come. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is USA -*BAD WORD*-ed or what lol I'm not american
Guest Recombo Posted September 18, 2004 Report Posted September 18, 2004 Both of those quotes about America are weak, at best. They convey fear and lack of understanding. That's bound to happen with kids. Both candidates have made their case for war, and both have the best interests of America at heart. That's what we should all expect from our leaders. As for not being American, too bad for you.
TWIN Posted September 19, 2004 Report Posted September 19, 2004 As for not being American, too bad for you.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Heh, is that so.
Recommended Posts