Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #41  
Old 01-26-2009, 06:03 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I'm pretty sure they were wrong.

* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium (Aug. 1, 2006 Note: link has moved; updated with saved text from original)
* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents (also updated with saved text from original)
* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas) (May 7, 2006 Note: link has moved; will update with saved text shortly; May 8 - fixed)
* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency
This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet, Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces found NO weapons of mass destruction.

Did Carter mention those WMD's? While not a whole lot was found, AND it was only one of 50 reasons to take Sadaam out. Still - there were WMD's found. So Carter was wrong in his wild guess on WMD's.

Last edited by pgzn; 01-26-2009 at 06:08 PM.
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #42  
Old 01-26-2009, 06:19 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint View Post
Fourth: It is hard to imagine how George Bush might have screwed up the middle east even worse than he did....but I guess you could tell us how...
I must admit, some of the information about Iraq actually possessing WMDs is new to my knowledge today. So some of that information could have been exaggerated or distorted. So I'll have to give you that credit -good comeback FP.

But I still didn't like you writing that red in that quote that said 'originally posted by krahmaan'. Nope, didn't like that one bit.

Onward, I still feel that even if Bush made some mistake restarting the tension between the US and Iraq. As least he did do something like nuclear bomb anyone like the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Similar to when Harry S. Truman was just put into office made that dire decision that included the US into WWII, and took definitely more lives than the events of/after September 11 2001.
 
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-26-2009, 06:52 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
WWII is probably not a good example for a pacivist to bring up in regards to Iraq. By their logic, Germany never attacked the US therefore US fighting Germany was an illegal war. US troops had no business interfering in Europe. Thus, the Netherlands would still be filling the role of comfort girl to the Germans, and most of Europe would be speaking German today.

None of that happened, because of the United States minding their business and fighting for their freedom. How many did the US free in WWII? Was it greater than the 50 million moslems Bush freed, by ignoring pacivists?
 
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-26-2009, 09:17 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
I'm pretty sure they were wrong.

* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium (Aug. 1, 2006 Note: link has moved; updated with saved text from original)
* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents (also updated with saved text from original)
* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas) (May 7, 2006 Note: link has moved; will update with saved text shortly; May 8 - fixed)
* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency
This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet, Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces found NO weapons of mass destruction.

Did Carter mention those WMD's? While not a whole lot was found, AND it was only one of 50 reasons to take Sadaam out. Still - there were WMD's found. So Carter was wrong in his wild guess on WMD's.
All the weapons that were found were left overs from the weapons programs that ended by about 1993...most were inoperable....the gas weapons were no longer usable...there is a "use by" date on chemical weapons...George Bush finally conceded there were no weapons.

Everytime some of this useless stuff was discovered a Republican Congressman and/or Rush Limbaugh would blurt out about...."they've found them, folks"...and then it was announced they were essentially unusable....never the weapons Saddam was supposed to have, and never evidence of an active weapons program.

As for the 50 reasons to take out Saddam....the U.S. had only 2 that could sell the war....one was to convince Congress and the American people that Saddam was capable of and ready to attack us.....and the other was that he was involved in 9/11....neither was true.

Bush/Cheney were lucky to get out of office without being impeached.
 
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-26-2009, 09:27 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
I must admit, some of the information about Iraq actually possessing WMDs is new to my knowledge today. So some of that information could have been exaggerated or distorted. So I'll have to give you that credit -good comeback FP.

But I still didn't like you writing that red in that quote that said 'originally posted by krahmaan'. Nope, didn't like that one bit.

Onward, I still feel that even if Bush made some mistake restarting the tension between the US and Iraq. As least he did do something like nuclear bomb anyone like the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Similar to when Harry S. Truman was just put into office made that dire decision that included the US into WWII, and took definitely more lives than the events of/after September 11 2001.

Well the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous...fortunately never repeated again. Historians seem to say they saved more lives than they took. But they ended the war...

Thankfully George Bush didn't nuke Iraq....

I will never again write in red like that on your post. I looked back and realized what you meant that it appeared it was part of your writing.) My apologies....
 
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-26-2009, 09:36 PM
ranter ranter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 10-08-08
Location: RealityCheckVille
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
None of that happened, because of the United States minding their business and fighting for their freedom.
Reality Check

Lets just say that Americans went to War not because they want to but because they have to, to stop Russians from taking over the whole Europe and to make sure French, Italians and yes, Dutch continue to speak their own languages instead of Russian

 
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-27-2009, 12:26 AM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
WWII is probably not a good example for a pacivist to bring up in regards to Iraq. By their logic, Germany never attacked the US therefore US fighting Germany was an illegal war.
You also bring up a good point pgzn. But I'm not completely a pacifist myself. Even though I do agree that diplomacy should be the main gateway to solving the worlds problems, there are times where a more firm and direct action may be required.

I know that the bombing of Japan is a touchy subject, but I only brought it up because if you refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

Quote:
The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, and one minelayer, destroyed 188 aircraft, and caused personnel losses of 2,402 killed and 1,282 wounded.
In contrast to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

Quote:
Excluding the 19 hijackers, 2,974 people died in the attacks. Another 24 are missing and presumed dead.[3][4]
More Americans actually died in the September 11 Attacks, rather than in the Attack on Pearl Harbor. So with that being fact, there was always the possibility of the newly elected President (Bush) making the same mistake of using nuclear weapons in reply to the attacks. That was the only reason why I brought it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
How many did the US free in WWII? Was it greater than the 50 million moslems Bush freed, by ignoring pacivists?
You are correct, US action did succeed both in Germany and Iraq. By Iraq becoming more of a Democracy and Germany More of a Republic rather than Totalitarian. But would you have agreed if President Bush dropped some nukes on Afghanistan and/or Iraq in reply to Osama bin Laden? Would it have helped Democracy or Diplomacy at all? IMO the ripple effect could have been disastrous for the rest of the world clamoring in fear.
 
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-27-2009, 10:39 AM
babbelon's Avatar
babbelon babbelon is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-20-09
Location: New York
Posts: 116
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Let me be the first to say the following... We the People of the United States of America chose to elect George W. Bush into office TWICE and Saddam Hussein (no matter what angle you look at this from) was an imminent threat to EVERYONE.

While I do not agree that the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq amidst the ongoing search for Osama BinLaden I do believe that THIS WORLD AND THIS COUNTRY ARE MORE SECURE AND SAFE with the elimination of Saddam Hussein. Let's face it people, THE MAN WAS A MONSTER!! I for one am glad that he is gone. Now let's drop the whole "Sh!t on Bush" routine and focus on what really matters.. OUR CURRENT SITUATION. There will be plenty of time in the years to come to rehash our not so fond memories of Bush.

I believe, with regard to our former president, it would be better (and wiser) to learn from the mistakes of OUR past and move forward into the future rather than persecute the person and/or people of the past who made the mistakes in the first place. We are not living in the yesterday people we are here Now, RIGHT NOW and if we want to be around when the future comes we need to deal with what is here in the present not the past.

In conclusion, though I do not agree that George W. Bush did what was correct or appropriate for our country at the time, sooner or later it had to be done. Saddam was a loose cannon and he killed more than enough people to warrant his own dis empowerment and death.
 
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-27-2009, 01:27 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
But would you have agreed if President Bush dropped some nukes on Afghanistan and/or Iraq in reply to Osama bin Laden? Would it have helped Democracy or Diplomacy at all? IMO the ripple effect could have been disastrous for the rest of the world clamoring in fear.
Don't lose sight of the fact that in WWll we were fighting Germany and Japan....both nations. We were not at war with Afghanistan but with the Taliban which harbored terrorists known as alQaeda and Osama bin Laden.

As for nuking Iraq?...that would have started a huge war that would have united the entire ME against the 'infidels'...us....and would have resulted in Bush/Cheney being dragged out of the WH in tightly wrapped white suits....so you are correct...Bush could have been a lot worse...
 
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-27-2009, 01:29 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Let me be the first to say the following... We the People of the United States of America chose to elect George W. Bush into office TWICE and Saddam Hussein (no matter what angle you look at this from) was an imminent threat to EVERYONE.
One half of this statement is true....we (not me) did put that embecile in the WH twice.....
 
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-27-2009, 01:32 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
There would be no point in nuking Iraq, or Afghanistan, besides the desire to do $500 in damage. I'm pretty sure they are on notice that Mecca's coordinates are dialed in though. That'd be the first place to nuke. Eliminate the problem at it's source. Hit the hive, not the wasp.

Last edited by pgzn; 01-27-2009 at 01:36 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-27-2009, 03:38 PM
rabble's Avatar
rabble rabble is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-24-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,868
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I do not believe Bush can be, or ever will be, prosecuted for his neocon wars of aggression. Not here in the US. Nor by any international tribunal because I do not believe the US would ever surrender him to any such court for prosecution. So ... all of the talk here is pretty much useless.

All that can really be hoped for is a series of investigations that will attempt to reveal the truth, or maybe attempt to cover up the truth, if the truth can ever be truly known.

The sad truth is the United States' legislatures, House and Senate, cooperated in all that was done as did the judiciary by not forcefully renouncing unconstitutionality in high places. And the electorate cooperated by re-electing GWB in 2004.

We are now reaping the whirlwind and I hope by the time the whip-lashing is through we will all have learned our lesson.

Somehow, I doubt it, At long as there are people like pgzn to stir up the ignorant masses with their hateful venom and convince them that 'others' are somehow less than human ...

well ... I will trail off here ...

the best thing we can do is to teach our children to be better than we are.
 
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-27-2009, 10:10 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
There would be no point in nuking Iraq, or Afghanistan, besides the desire to do $500 in damage. I'm pretty sure they are on notice that Mecca's coordinates are dialed in though. That'd be the first place to nuke. Eliminate the problem at it's source. Hit the hive, not the wasp.


You had some pretty good arguments at first there pgzn. But this one almost sounds like bias rather than any real political significance. I mean, Islam is not only in Mecca but also in many parts of the world. Not even that would destroy it, and not all Muslims are terrorists -mind you.

Funny for you to say this, because when they brought up that political thread called "Christianity Is RACIST" -you never once entered the discussion to defend Christianity. Nope, I can't find not even one post there by you since my last post there on 12-06-2008, 09:31 AM.

That kind of makes your statement here sound hypocritical -with all due respect to the political forums.
 
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-28-2009, 01:12 AM
yollyP yollyP is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 12-06-08
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
united people - needed

Too much has been said about the "retired-pres B." For now, let him rest and let history be the judged. Terrorist are terrorist no matter who the president is. Remember, these charlatans are here to create chaos and one way to stop them is for the people to unite and not let the president do the "destroying" process alone. He's not superman nor any superheroes in disguise. He's just a man, a leader worth our help to.
 
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-28-2009, 09:30 AM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post


You had some pretty good arguments at first there pgzn. But this one almost sounds like bias rather than any real political significance. I mean, Islam is not only in Mecca but also in many parts of the world. Not even that would destroy it, and not all Muslims are terrorists -mind you.

Funny for you to say this, because when they brought up that political thread called "Christianity Is RACIST" -you never once entered the discussion to defend Christianity. Nope, I can't find not even one post there by you since my last post there on 12-06-2008, 09:31 AM.

That kind of makes your statement here sound hypocritical -with all due respect to the political forums.
OK, didn't see the thread, or forgot it existed. I'll go on the record denouncing christians too if it makes you happy. All religion is inherently evil because it isn't based on reason, but superstition. But yeah - nuke mecca. It's a great starting point. Short of that, hold it hostage. Put the moslem terrorists on notice that it is the next target in the war they started.

I also stand by the theory that they have been made aware that mecca is a target. Unprovable - but what I suspect nonetheless. I do support a warning and giving everyone within 30 miles a chance to flee, like we did in Japan.

On the argument that not all moslems support the war that some of them started - it's irrelevant. When/if mecca is turned to dust, and blows away, they can blame their fellow moslems, something few (if any) of them do right now.

Last edited by pgzn; 01-28-2009 at 09:47 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-28-2009, 04:49 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
OK, didn't see the thread, or forgot it existed. I'll go on the record denouncing christians too if it makes you happy. All religion is inherently evil because it isn't based on reason, but superstition. But yeah - nuke mecca. It's a great starting point. Short of that, hold it hostage. Put the moslem terrorists on notice that it is the next target in the war they started.
OK, I think I get it. You sound like another one of those "Hate All Religions" type of fellows. Am I right?

That's all good and well, everybody doth has his 'opinion' or her 'prerogative'. So I guess by your and your type of reasoning Israel would be next on the target list, and then maybe the Pope -am I correct? Next would come Buddhist temples and Hindu sects as well -no? Does that mean that we also line up every humanitarian and execute them with blindfolds? How courageous that would make us -huh pgzn?

But then that would give the US way too many enemies -wouldn't it???

I don't know, I could be wrong. Let's just hope that one day the US doesn't declare war on all Atheists. Then, the sane parts of the world would be lost...
 
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-28-2009, 04:56 PM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
As for Bush crimes...

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305735

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...eld/index.html

Quote:
The bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report issued on Thursday -- which documents that "former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials share much of the blame for detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" and "that Rumsfeld's actions were 'a direct cause of detainee abuse' at Guantanamo and 'influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques ... in Afghanistan and Iraq'" -- raises an obvious and glaring question: how can it possibly be justified that the low-level Army personnel carrying out these policies at Abu Ghraib have been charged, convicted and imprisoned, while the high-level political officials and lawyers who directed and authorized these same policies remain free of any risk of prosecution? The culpability which the Report assigns for these war crimes is vast in scope and unambiguous:
The executive summary also traces the erosion of detainee treatment standards to a Feb,. 7, 2002, memorandum signed by President George W. Bush stating that the Geneva Convention did not apply to the U.S. war with al Qaeda and that Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or legal protections.
"The president's order closed off application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment," the summary said.
Members of Bush's Cabinet and other senior officials participated in meetings inside the White House in 2002 and 2003 where specific interrogation techniques were discussed, according to the report.
The policies which the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously concludes were authorized by Bush, Rumsfeld and several other top Bush officials did not merely lead to "abuse" and humiliating treatment, but are directly -- and unquestionably -- responsible for numerous detainee murders. Many of those deaths caused by abusive treatment have been formally characterized as "homicides" by autopsies performed in Iraq and Afghanistan (see these chilling compilations of autopsy findings on detainees in U.S. custody, obtained by the ACLU, which reads like a classic and compelling exhibit in a war crimes trial).
Busted. The question is not "is he a war criminal", this has been established. The question is; Will he ever be hold accountable?
 
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-28-2009, 05:00 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
No. I believe I said we should give the humans time to flee before destroying their idol. I could care less about people's religious beliefs, unless it is used to justify killing me. At that point - it's me or them. I choose me.

Top 10 Peace-Loving Quotes from the Koran

"Therefore We will most certainly make those who disbelieve taste a severe punishment, and We will most certainly reward them for the evil deeds they used to do." (41.27)

"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward." (4.74)

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (9.29)

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (5.51)

"And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do." (8.39)

"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates." (47.4)

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." (9.123)

"They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper." (4.89)

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" (5.33)

"O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand." (8.65)
 
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-28-2009, 05:44 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
No. I believe I said we should give the humans time to flee before destroying their idol. I could care less about people's religious beliefs, unless it is used to justify killing me. At that point - it's me or them. I choose me.
Humans? So you're not human too -what are you then?

Idols? You mean symbols of belief or worship -right?

I'll post all the symbols I can find here so then we'll know who all the US would have to target: (Wow, that's almost the entire world -I know there are more symbols out there)
Attached Images
     
 
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-28-2009, 05:48 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Here a few more symbols; idols

Let's just be realistic about this, you just can't blame one religion for the worlds troubles and want to blow them up. You also can't blame all religions or sects without taking a good look in the mirror as well.
Attached Images
     
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
marijuana can cause psychosis. Agree? ryukenden Controversial Social Issues 161 12-17-2007 02:30 PM
I agree georgechristodoulou Marketing Forum 3 11-23-2006 03:35 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC