Another great idea by the US government

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

Originally Posted by gekko

LOL. You're strange



You would be surprised how much the President doesn't have control over. Thanks to the lovely system of checks and balances, the President doesn't always get his way, and they have little control in other large government agencies, like the CIA, FBI, and many things within the military. But the President plays scapegoat during his term, part of the job I guess.



That's because it was a mistake. This was such big news because it happened to Canadian troops, but friendly fire incidents happen all the time to American troops. Take a look at the numbers in Iraq, non-hostile casualties are at a disturbing rate. Friendly fire is part of war, it happens, but this time it happened to someone else's troops. Not a good thing, but it's nearly impossible to uncover what went wrong in a situation like that. What is Bush supposed to apologize for, someone else screwing up? It's not Bush's mistake, I don't see why he would owe an apology. And the Canadian troops getting hit is not something Bush is supposed to have control over, going back to your earlier statement.



CNN shouldn't be suggesting anything, and if they are, change the channel immediatly. CNN should only report the facts, any suggestions should be commentary by various people who appear on their shows. Talk about war with Iran has been going on since they were named as part of the axis of evil. But the younger generation in Iran is likely to revolt, and overthrow their own government. That is far from a war with the US. That falls under the CIA's job.

hmm, never looked at many of those things in that way.... stupid CNN *muttering*

[gekko]

Originally Posted by GiMpY-wAnNaBe

hmm, never looked at many of those things in that way.... stupid CNN *muttering*

Hope you're not getting the wrong impression about CNN. CNN should only be reporting the facts, and leave you to form your own opinions about it. Now most news stations on TV are full of programs that bring in people to have political discussions. Those people will try to get their message across, but it will likely only show one side of the issue. CNN itself should never be suggesting anything about a war with Iran, but someone who comes on CNN may. It's his/her opinion, but they doesn't speak for the government, and they are likely only telling one side of the issue. The other problem with those shows, which was made very apparent when making the case for Iraq, is that they make the issue seem very cut and dry, and they never are. There are many things which are important, but will never make it into those short segments. Everything goes much deeper, but that stuff is usually left out of TV.

Anyway, before I get into a long rant on how I hate the media, I'll get back to the point. Someone who goes on CNN may think we're going to war with Iran, but there are many out there who also think that we won't. Don't start blaming Bush for something that someone on CNN is predicting. The White House handles each situation differently, and they have never said they plan to attack Iran. There's nothing wrong with watching CNN, but be sure to listen to both sides of the issue, because the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. CNN's website is a much better place for information, if you want to avoid so much of the editorial, but they will only report what is new. For a better understanding of the whole situation, past, present and future, magazines like TIME, US News & World Report, and The Atlantic Monthly usually do a better job of giving you a more in-depth look at the situation, and not just what is currently going on.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Bond

This keeps interest up. So it is a smart idea.

Im not even going to coment on that.

And I wouldn't be proud to be a Democrat right now. You have one huge image problem.

Whatever, man. Ill be proud of whatever the hell I want to be proud of.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Im not even going to coment on that.

Terrorists are proven to attack when least expected. If you keep public interest up in the war against terrorism people will remain vigilant and it will be less likely that there will be a terrorist attack. It's an extremely simple concept.

I posted on another thread, the one about saddams sons confirmed dead, that America is doing stupid things that they dont have buisiness doing. Many people there forceably disagreed with me. Lets see them defend this.

Please do not turn this one of those "us vs. you" kind of things. We all of have our own unique opinions and that would be senseless.

And gekko is right about CNN. They should only report the facts, and not be opinionated in that regard. I still prefer newspapers over news channels. And there's a pretty low possibility that we could wage war with Iran. There will most likely be an uprising against the current government instead. Bet CNN didn't tell you that, eh gimpy?

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

Originally Posted by Bond

Terrorists are proven to attack when least expected. If you keep public interest up in the war against terrorism people will remain vigilant and it will be less likely that there will be a terrorist attack. It's an extremely simple concept.


Please do not turn this one of those "us vs. you" kind of things. We all of have our own unique opinions and that would be senseless.

And gekko is right about CNN. They should only report the facts, and not be opinionated in that regard. I still prefer newspapers over news channels. And there's a pretty low possibility that we could wage war with Iran. There will most likely be an uprising against the current government instead. Bet CNN didn't tell you that, eh gimpy?

nope, they actually failed to mention that, , but you have to admit the current US government is having quite a few of unhappy citizens on its hands. not to mention global citizens, although i don't blame bush for everything, i do blame him for supporting a lot of things like a war Iraq, i mean, he hasn't found the weapons, yet he still persists they ARE there, not they MIGHT be there. In my mind the possibility that they are there doesn't exist, I don't think its all bushes fault, i just think the current government is corrupt.

[gekko]

Originally Posted by GiMpY-wAnNaBe

nope, they actually failed to mention that, , but you have to admit the current US government is having quite a few of unhappy citizens on its hands. not to mention global citizens, although i don't blame bush for everything, i do blame him for supporting a lot of things like a war Iraq, i mean, he hasn't found the weapons, yet he still persists they ARE there, not they MIGHT be there. In my mind the possibility that they are there doesn't exist, I don't think its all bushes fault, i just think the current government is corrupt.

The US government will always has unhappy citizens on its hands. It doesn't matter what administration, there are a lot of people who won't like it. Even with Reagan, where he won every state except Minnesota Funny though, Mondale can beat Reagan in this state, but can't beat Coleman for a Senate seat. Haha Back on track, making global citizens happy is not the responsibility of the US government. Being anti-Bush may have helped Germany's president win the election, but Germans don't vote in the US. People will always hate the US, the issue changes, but it's always there.

Now, on to WMD. The CIA had incredibly poor human intelligence in Iraq to actually tell us where these things are. The CIA has many problems these days, and not having human intelligence makes it really hard to find weapons. Saddam has been successfully hiding weapons for 12 years, in other words, he's an expert. See, what I find funny is that the very people who are worried about finding weapons are the ones who made it this difficult in the first place. Ideally, we should've attacked Iraq, without ever sending an inspector. Catch them offgaurd, before they have a chance to get all their defenses setup, and weapons hidden. But of course, lovely politicians don't think that way. So instead, Bush agrees to send back inspectors. If they can't do their job in a decade, how can anybody expect them to do any better in a couple months? Of course, they still didn't agree to the terms, where they could go anywhere. All interviews were done with an Iraqi government official there waiting to kill them, that's a lot of help. Oh, and let's not forget they were kept out of private homes. When the inspectors wanted to go into an Army base, they were told they couldn't. Of course, it didn't really make the headlines. Thank you media.

Anyway, inspectors are still given a guided tour of Iraq, come up with nothing. Only gives Saddam more time to hide them, and prepare. So then we take them out, and wait while we debate in the UN forever. Well that's great. Now we have no one in the country, and he is free to begin hiding these weapons wherever he chooses. He also gets time to stick the Fedayeen in with regular units to make the fighting harder than it ever should've been.

So where are they? Good question. At the end of the war we had only checked a third of the sites we knew about. Right now, we have over 7 miles of paper work recorvered, that they need to examine, which is a very slow process. Lack of human intelligence means we're stuck relying on people telling us where they are, and since we just now killed the kiddies, and big papa is still out there, I wouldn't expect to many Iraqis to be speaking quite yet. Common sense will tell you they exist. Throughout this process there have been many things found that help prove that they exist. Everything's there except the actual weapon, which they don't have for no reason. You don't by bullets if you don't have the gun. Finding those will be a lengthy process, and they are probably in some deep underground bunker that we don't know about, and only a few people would be able to point out.

As for Bush, he shouldn't ever say that there might not be there. As a leader, he needs to be confident. When people look to their leader, they want someone who can make a decision and stand behind it, and not crumble under pressure.

All government is corrupt, however, you need to be careful when you look at it that way. Everyone has their own personal agendas that they work for, and politicians are conceaned about the party, and not the people. Politics has a role in everything, unfortunately. But you take it way too far. Would the United States ever attack a country for oil? No. Would the United States give a construction deal to Halliburton over an equally-qualified company? Probably. Would the United States go to war to give Halliburton a job? No.

[Bond]

We must go over the same simple points over and over and over and over.

[Stonecutter]

Originally Posted by Bond

And gekko is right about CNN. They should only report the facts, and not be opinionated in that regard. I still prefer newspapers over news channels. And there's a pretty low possibility that we could wage war with Iran. There will most likely be an uprising against the current government instead. Bet CNN didn't tell you that, eh gimpy?

I assume it's still ok for Fox News to be opinionated though?

It's OK to be opinionated so long as you agree.

[gekko]

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

I assume it's still ok for Fox News to be opinionated though?

It's OK to be opinionated so long as you agree.

Of course it is, because Bond must be biased, right?

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

hmm, although i don't agree the US wouldn't go to war simply for oil, i do agree with some of the things you stated gekko, but a lot of it is about opinion. Its easy just to write off Hans Blix as a selfish idiot(to bond) and say its his fault taht nothings been found, but on the other hand, you could also look at the fact that he retired on his own, a little bit ironic if you think that the only reason he didn't find anything was for job security. Another reason why Bush might have started the war is the simple reason taht his dad tried the same thing, and Bush just wanted to continue his father legacy.


Another thing that has been curious to me is the fact taht the first thing the US does is go into Iraq and disarms them, and then wages a war on them!!!!!!!!!! is that not halarious????? i mean its like you want to play basketball with some guy but first you break his arms and legs! as for what strangler stated about those weapons being a breach, they were not, is iraq not allowed to have weapons to defend itself, if you say no, than that means the George Bush has no right to attack them, because if he does, than all the freedom and rights that america stands for is a load of crap. What is a breach??? what was found were not WMD so therefore saddam never stated he didn't have them, so therefore why shouldn't he have them??

I'm probably biased because i'm in canada and am influenced by media here. So that may also be why i believe this entire war (or slaughter) can never be justified.



And what ever happened to bin ladden??

hee hee, did you know that they were business partners for an oil well the opened up 2gether? too busy to get an article right now, but i'll get one later, its just that bush is a VERY shady character when it comes to morals so i don't think that he should be trusted to lead the worlds most powerful nation

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

I assume it's still ok for Fox News to be opinionated though?

It's OK to be opinionated so long as you agree.

That's not my point. Any one channel is allowed to be opinionated as long as they report the news as facts and nothing but facts. I want to hear the facts and details of things reported in an unbiased manner. As do most people.

[gekko]

News should only report the facts, and leave people to make their own decisions on how they feel about it. Report the facts, and let people make their own decisions.

Problem is we have things backwards in this country. News media has had liberal reporters for the longest time, and then when we start getting some conservative reporters, they go far right to counter it. So we're getting both sides of the issue, and need to find the middle ground. We should be given the middle ground and formed our own opinions on it.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by GiMpY-wAnNaBe

hehe, ironic you would say that on this topic, considering WMD are yet to be found

Exactly. If the whole "Innocent until proven guilty" is true, then we violated Iraq. We went over there and killed Iraqi soldiers because we thought they had WMD. The government probably had alterior motives, oil for example. But the reasons that they gave us and the rest of world have not yet been justified.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Exactly. If the whole "Innocent until proven guilty" is true, then we violated Iraq. We went over there and killed Iraqi soldiers because we thought they had WMD. The government probably had alterior motives, oil for example. But the reasons that they gave us and the rest of world have not yet been justified.

Good lord? Do you see what I mean? Why did I bother posting earlier? You know, when I laid out exactly why Iraq was ALREADY FOUND GUILTY!?!?!?!

1998 - Illegal weapons found. UN says "prove they are destroyed or face serious consequences". Iraq does not do this and is found to have illegal weapons before and during the war.

What about this do you NOT UNDERSTAND???

Some people only listen to what they want to hear...

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Bond

We must go over the same simple points over and over and over and over.

WHAT!? Im agreeing with Bond! Seems impossible...

Seriously, we did the whole "going to Iraq was stupid" debate before.