|
|
| Author |
Message |
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
 Posted: Jul 30, 2004 11:58pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="codemastr"] | Quote: | There are 7 nations that have declared (and have proved) they have nuclear weapons:
United States
Russia
Britain
France
China
India
Pakistan
|
Canada has had absolutely no nuclear weapons since 1984, when the USA armed Canadian weapons with nuclear warheads between 1963 and 1984 in Canada and Germany (which was all over the embarrassing petty Cold War, when the US and Soviet Union were afraid of each other). Canada is the country from which the CANDU nuclear reactors (http://www.candu.org/candu_reactors.html) are built to produce electricity. Electricity is not a weapon, but if you wish to call it that, I am not going to stop you. If you haven't noticed, Canada has peacekeepers, which are used to bring aid and defense to other countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
VVar
none
Joined: 07 Nov 2003
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Jul 31, 2004 8:01am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Since the terrorists do not meet that requirement, they are guaranteed NO protection under the Geneva Convention. Just to give you an idea of what that means, say the US finds a group of terrorists living in a house. The men inside are unarmed. The US enters the house and captures them. The US is 100% legally allowed to shoot these men. They are given NO rights under the Geneva Convention. However, the US, aka, "the evil/bad guys," decided not to do this. We decided to try and preserve life as much as possible. Instead we created our own distinction, "Enemy Combatant." Rather than shoot these guys on the spot (no trial, no chance for them to explain themselves, etc.), we put them in a prison where they are given food, water, clothing, and shelter. We even go so far as to allow them access to the Koran, religious leaders, and we show them the direction to face Mecca for their daily prayers. NONE of that is required, we do it because we are trying our best not to kill people. But instead, people keep wanting to say "the US is breaking the Geneva Convention," without realizing that we are giving the prisoners a thousand times more than we are required to. |
There's another reason we do this, and in a war it is far more important than the preserving life idea. Why do you let someone live that wants to kill you?
I'm speaking as someone that served in the US Army during Operations Desert Shield/Storm, in a unit inside Iraq, and headed toward Baghdad. Let me point out that the first "resistance" we met was "civilian" soldiers that had been taken from their home, given weapons of a sort, and told "fight or die." These men had no training whatsoever, and were going up against what is arguably the best, strongest (at the least most well armed) force in the world. I believe someone said Cannon Fodder, well here is a prime example of what that word means.
Iraq's republican guard was stationed to the north of these "soldiers" and the poor fools were shot if they tried to escape to the north by their own people. And of course they were scared to come south. They were seriously malnourished, and had very poor hygiene as they just had no supplies for it. No one was worried about their health, no one in their own country expected them to live anyway.
Well, a few months before the war started the US started actually doing some real “carpet bombing”. Only the planes weren’t loaded down with bombs, but with pamphlets explaining to the poor fools on the Iraqi lines how they would be treated if they fought, and how they would be treated if they surrendered. They were promised warm dry quarters, let me point out that it was winter, it was cold, even in the desert, and it rained more often than not.
When we actually crossed the berm (a wall of earth the Iraqis had built along their southern border), if we had gone in there killing, we could have wiped these poor fools out. They didn’t fight however, and we were good to our promise. They rode to a holding area on the front of M1’s (The main battle tank for the US Army) As they passed us they were sitting on the front of these tanks, smiling, waving to the US troops headed north, and eating. The first thing we had done before taking them to the rear, out of harms way, was fed them.
This approach not only saved thousands of people. It also lessened their resolve.
It reminds me of one of Aesop’s Fables:
| Quote: | One day a hound dog went hunting by himself in the woods. He spotted a rabbit in the underbrush and chased him out into the open. The rabbit darted this way and that. The dog followed. The rabbit ran, with the dog at his heels, around trees and through an open field.
When the dog began to tire of the chase, the rabbit, with one last burst of energy, dashed into the thicket and escaped to safety.
As the dog turned back for home, a goat herder who had seen the chase jeered at him, saying, "Some hunter you are! You let that rabbit get the best of you!"
"You forget," replied the tired dog, "about the rabbit's strife! I was only running for my supper. He was running for his life!"
|
If we had gone in there to kill these people, they would have fought for their lives. We would have wiped them out, just like Hussein intended. But how many of our men would have died in the process?
It is the US’s policy to not mistreat prisoners. Not only to preserve their lives, but also because if the world knows we treat prisoners well, then when we are in conflict, people will be a lot quicker to surrender. In the end this policy helps preserve our lives as well.
And as always we are the monsters.
I don't really trust the media, I don't just assume that since they said it. it must be true. I haven't since Vietnam. If you choose to believe everything they say, then Im sorry, for you.
I have discovered, while reading this forum, and others like it, there are a great many people in the world, and in fact, even within the US that would believe anything said about the US as long as it was bad. Let it be good, and they either don't pay attention, or out and out call it a lie. Let it be bad, some new atrocity, some new scandal or cover up, and people flock to it like a new gospel.
You will believe what you want. Notice that word, WANT. I honestly believe a lot of you people make a conscience decision on what you will believe and what you wont, without even thinking for yourself or weighing facts. The thing that makes me sad, is how many of you will take something you heard and come on forums like this one and act like it is fact, like you saw it with your own eyes. And so often you even have things twisted to such a point that you arent even saying what was originally said.
This is something I have seen with my own eyes. It is not from the press, it is from someone that was there. It is not propaganda. I have no agenda, and as such, dont really care what you think about it, or if you even believe it at all.
peace, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Jul 31, 2004 9:45am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I have discovered, while reading this forum, and others like it, there are a great many people in the world, and in fact, even within the US that would believe anything said about the US as long as it was bad. Let it be good, and they either don't pay attention, or out and out call it a lie. Let it be bad, some new atrocity, some new scandal or cover up, and people flock to it like a new gospel.
|
VVar, thank you for that post. I hope it will open some eyes.
It didn't surprise me to recently learn that 90% of the members of the media are on the far left. CNN revealed they didn't report on Saddam's atrocities and efforts to block discovery of WMDs before the war, because Saddam threatened to block their access to the country. They certainly don't give much press to the WMDs that have been discovered coming out of Iraq these recent months. The major newspapers in England get their Middle East coverage from reporters who are aligned with terrorists. I am not talking about interviewing terrorists, they socialize with terrorists and those who back them between writing their anti-American stories. I'm not sure if these reporters feel they are fighting the war of socialism against capitalism in their own way, or if they are just as misled as the rest of those who dismiss all the good things about America and concentrate only on creating scandals.
In any case, it was more than clear watching the recent convention that the Democrat Party Organization has passionately embraced the far liberal left. Its going to be a VERY interesting election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Jul 31, 2004 11:34am Post subject: |
|
|
al5001, sorry, I misstated. Canada has the capability and the technology to produce nuclear weapons if she so chooses. Canada does not currently possess (at least they don't admit it publically) nuclear weapons.
| Quote: |
I'm speaking as someone that served in the US Army during Operations Desert Shield/Storm, in a unit inside Iraq, and headed toward Baghdad. |
First of all, I'd like to thank you for your service in the military. Even though most people seem to hate the US military, there are still those of us who value the vital service you provided.
You bring up a very good point about making people want to surrender. If you look at Operation Iraqi Freedom, I recall reading, that before the war even started, about a dozen Iraqi "soldiers" surrendered to British forces in Kuwait. Clearly the only reason they would have surrendered so quickly is if they felt they'd be treated better by surrendering than by putting up a fight.
| Quote: | | It is the US’s policy to not mistreat prisoners. |
Before anyone says anything about this, yes there have been prisoners abused. However, that doesn't mean it is US policy. No natter what country it is, there will always be bad peopl in the military. Just like we have criminals in society, there are criminals in the military. But the fact that a handful of soldiers "tortured" prisoners does not mean that the US endorses such policies. It simply means that the particular soldier was acting on his/her own accord.
| Quote: | | I don't really trust the media, I don't just assume that since they said it. it must be true. I haven't since Vietnam. If you choose to believe everything they say, then Im sorry, for you. |
It really is sad how people believe everything they read/see on TV. And even worse, the fact that they get all their information from one place. At least if you get it from multiple sources, you have some form of corroboration. But just a couple of stories I remember hearing about.
The first one is with the BBC. People seem to think the BBC is the most unbiased news source in the world. Just after Hussein was captured, the BBC imposed a requirement on their reporters. They said that they could not refer to Hussein as a "dictator." The term "former dictator," was to be replaced with "deposed former president." They claimed the reasoning behind this was the prevent bias. Regardless of whether you think Hussein was evil, or the greatest leader ever, one thing was clear - he was a dictator. Hussein went against Iraqi law to overrule the Iraqi parliament (remember, the parliament voted NOT to allow inspectors back in). Hussein was a brutal dictator, that is a fact. Saying so does not show bias. However, REQUIRING all reporters to stop using the word dictator clearly shows that they are trying to portray the message that Hussein was wrongfully overthrown.
The second story involves Reuters News Agency. I don't recall the article exactly, it's been a while since I read it, but I've summed up the basics of it. An American journalist wrote an article regarding post-war Iraq. She sold this article to Reuters. The article she wrote talked about how Iraq isn't in the greatest shape at the moment, but it is on the road to recovery, and one this was certain, Iraq is far better off without Hussein. Upon purchasing this article, Reuters edited it just as any news agency would. However, Reuters edited it for content. The article was manipulated such that it said Iraq is in chaos at the moment, with no end in sight. The article pointed out that under Hussein car bombings was not a daily occurance, but after the war, they are. What's worse, the original author's name remained on the article. Naturally, she became angry that her words were manipulated and they still put her name on it. She had said things were looking as though life would be better, but the article made it sound like things can only get worse. When she contacted Reuters, they informed her that it is their right as editors to change the content of the article. It may well be that Reuters did nothing illegal by changing the content of the article, but it clearly presents a bias. They did not publish the author's views, instead they rewrote the article to express their views, then put the original author's name on it.
I could point out dozens of other examples, Osama Bin Laden is not a "terrorist" but a "man accused of being a terrorist by the United States government." September 11th was not a "terrorist attack" but an "attack by suspected terrorists." The war in Afghanistan was not a "war on terrorism" it was an "attack on Afghanistan." Examples abound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Jul 31, 2004 1:45pm Post subject: |
|
|
Codemastr, well said.
Just before the war started, more of the atrocities of the Hussain family and their gang of thugs became public - such as putting prisoners through tree shredders, tossing people head first from buildings, chopping off body parts of both criminals, and athletes who did not perform to the ruling family's satisfaction. CNN came out and said, "We knew about these things, but DIDN'T REPORT THEM, because doing so would put our staff in danger."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/jordan_4-17.html
Now, think about that for a minute. The world's #1 television news company knew people were being tortured and killed and HID THE EVIDENCE so they could keep reporting from Iraq.
Do you REALLY think we're getting the full story?
The truth is, only reporters FRIENDLY to the regimes are allowed to report. The #1 newspaper in the UK has two reporters assigned to Iraq. Both of them are REGULARLY seen in the SOCIAL company of terrorists and mobsters in cafes and restaurants in Baghdad. They aren't just interviewing the bad guys, they're going out to dinner with them. Same is true with Reuters. A US reporter I know said there is a regular old fraternity between Hamas terrorists and reporters in Palestine, and new reporters are NOT welcome unless they support the cause. These reporters do not promote the ideology of the country that hired them. Their reports are biased towards our ENEMIES. Could you imagine the wife of one of Hitler's SS storm troopers sending reports about the progress of the war to the London Times during WWII? That's the situation we have now.
Add in people like Michael Moore, who completely fabricate stories to support their anti-american agendas ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/jordan_4-17.html ), and the Democrat's war machine trying to steal an election and then like some psychopath transfering the blame to the victim ( http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/el-rant.html ) and... its just pathetic.
I live in Florida. In one of the few heavily Democratic districts in the State. In an area that looks like a little United Nations convention. The 2000 Presidential Election was no different from any other. We went to the polls, which were quite crowded, the polite but serious worker behind the desk looked up my info and I signed the big book. The ballot was the same we have used for decades. We voted. We left. We went home. Uneventful as ever. But on the news that night I heard there were police blockades, fire hoses were being used against black people to keep them from the polls, the ballot was "confusing" and Bush and his brother were trying to steal the election. In MY district.
Huh? Like VVar, my reality was quite different from the news stories. It turned out that all those stories about harassment were not true. Not one of them. It turned out that Bush won the recount, and the next recount, and the next recount, and even the recount when Democrats figured that everyone who voted for Buchanan, REALLY meant to vote for Gore and assigned those votes to him. Bush STILL won.
At the Democratic Party Convention, almost every speaker got up and boomed, "Every Vote Counts", and "We will not let THIS election be stolen away from us". Michael Moore is going to come to Florida to watch the polls. I'm sure he's standing at his printing press, making newspapers that declare Kerry the winner, right this very minute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Jul 31, 2004 1:59pm Post subject: |
|
|
After reading back from the previous topic, I notice an issue that should be brought up.
| codemastr wrote: | Also you say 3 continents? Which 3? Something tells me you invented your own. There are only 2 continents that bear the name America.
|
I know this was directed at someone else, but just to step in -- yes of course there are 3 American Continents: North, Central, and South. Central America is mostly Mexico however, it also includes some other countries: Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, and many many more countries.
Central America is rarely spoken of amongst the general public in North America, however that does not make it nonexistent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talrias
Lurker
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 163
Location: :noitacoL
|
| Posted: Jul 31, 2004 4:47pm Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | | The first one is with the BBC. People seem to think the BBC is the most unbiased news source in the world. Just after Hussein was captured, the BBC imposed a requirement on their reporters. They said that they could not refer to Hussein as a "dictator." The term "former dictator," was to be replaced with "deposed former president." They claimed the reasoning behind this was the prevent bias. Regardless of whether you think Hussein was evil, or the greatest leader ever, one thing was clear - he was a dictator. Hussein went against Iraqi law to overrule the Iraqi parliament (remember, the parliament voted NOT to allow inspectors back in). Hussein was a brutal dictator, that is a fact. Saying so does not show bias. However, REQUIRING all reporters to stop using the word dictator clearly shows that they are trying to portray the message that Hussein was wrongfully overthrown. |
I don't understand how this shows that the BBC is biased. Just because a word is not used to describe someone does not mean that the description is not true. The BBC is not trying to portray the message that Saddam was overthrown wrongfully. I don't see how you draw this conclusion.
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Jul 31, 2004 5:01pm Post subject: |
|
|
| al5001 wrote: | | I know this was directed at someone else, but just to step in -- yes of course there are 3 American Continents: North, Central, and South. |
Where do you live? I know some countries do not recognize political borders and thus combine North and South America to "America" and Asia and Europe to Eurasia... but I've never heard anyone call Central America a separate continent. Interesting, as there is no geographical separation, and Texas was once part of Mexico.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001745.html
"The Caribbean islands, Central America, and Greenland are considered part of North America." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w00t
Eleet
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 699
Location: Nowra, Australia
|
| Posted: Jul 31, 2004 10:00pm Post subject: |
|
|
| al5001 wrote: | | Electricity is not a weapon, but if you wish to call it that, I am not going to stop you. If you haven't noticed, Canada has peacekeepers, which are used to bring aid and defense to other countries. |
May I just point out that Australia, the US, Indonesia.... quite a few countries in fact, offer aid and defence to other countries. The question tht I bring up, is this aid warranted. Did they ask for it? Sometimes yes, sometimes no... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Jul 31, 2004 11:42pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't understand how this shows that the BBC is biased. Just because a word is not used to describe someone does not mean that the description is not true. The BBC is not trying to portray the message that Saddam was overthrown wrongfully. I don't see how you draw this conclusion. |
You misunderstood. My point was not that they are not referring to him as a dictator, it was that they have *forced* the reporters not to do it. If a particular reporter wants to call him a dictator, he should be allowed, just as if a reporter who wishes to refer to him as "the legitimate ruler of Iraq" he should be allowed. But forcing the reporters to use certain words goes against the idea of the free press.
mregit, yeah that election stuff, that was fun. I've seen the "butterfly ballots." To be quite honest, if that thing is too complex for you to figure out, I'm a little frightened that you get to vote for President! It might not have been the most easy to understand thing in the world, but it certainly wasn't confusing to the point where you could really screw up. Plus, I don't know about Florida, but where I live, there is always someone to ask. One time I was voting, and the label for one of the names was missing. I didn't just say "Oh well, I'll just randomly check one!" instead I asked the election official, and she corrected the problem. If someone really was confused, ASK FOR HELP! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2004 6:50am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You misunderstood. My point was not that they are not referring to him as a dictator, it was that they have *forced* the reporters not to do it. If a particular reporter wants to call him a dictator, he should be allowed, just as if a reporter who wishes to refer to him as "the legitimate ruler of Iraq" he should be allowed. But forcing the reporters to use certain words goes against the idea of the free press. |
Did you notice the word "terrorist" is all but gone from news reports as well. They are now armed insurgents, extremists, gunmen, militants, and even (making our founding fathers spin in their graves) freedom fighters. But never call them what they ARE - Islamic terrorists. Too un-PC and scary. Can't have the world waking up to the fact that a political ideology with violent expansionist plans is masquerading as a legitimate religion in order to achieve their goals.
| Quote: | | Plus, I don't know about Florida, but where I live, there is always someone to ask. One time I was voting, and the label for one of the names was missing. I didn't just say "Oh well, I'll just randomly check one!" instead I asked the election official, and she corrected the problem. If someone really was confused, ASK FOR HELP! |
During the Vietnam War, the soldiers complained that they could join the army at 18, but they couldn't drink or vote. So the government lowered the age restrictions for those two things. The day 18 yr olds became eligible to vote happened to be, my 18th birthday. So before going to school that morning I stopped at the Board of Elections and registered. The woman behind the counter happily waved my birth certificate around the office - for a brief moment I was the youngest voter in the country. Besides voting, I've been a poll worker, and also a vote witness. Political parties are allowed to have a representative in the polling place after it closes down, to witness the vote being counted (its often counted several times by several people, just to be sure) and recorded. We then phone it back to our headquarters so we know who is winning, while the actual tally is sent to the county Board of Elections, counted AGAIN, and released to the news media. In ALL the elections I've been involved with, the workers take their jobs VERY VERY seriously. They think they are personally responsible for guarding Liberty by insuring you know how to vote, you get to vote, and its recorded accurately. They are like kindly but strict school teachers who have endless patience explaining something you don't understand, yet have no hesitation tossing troublemakers right out on their keester.
There is a MUCH greater chance unethical activities will happen outside of the polling places.
The 2000 Florida election was not about fraud. It was about manipulating the results. If it was about fairness, then the ENTIRE state of Florida would have been recounted by a bi-partisan committee. But the Dems wanted, and GOT, only highly Democratic areas recounted, by Democrats, hoping to pick up enough "new" votes to swing the close election the other way. Each time the recount didn't produce the results they wanted, their claims of abuse escalated to justify their demands for yet another recount, under broader and more liberal rules (read this url. I know its long, but its very enlightening - http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/el-rant.html ) until the Supreme Court put a stop to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2004 11:18am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | until the Supreme Court put a stop to it. |
Not like it ended there though. All the liberals still say the only reason the supreme court decided the way they did was because the conservative judges wanted Bush to win. So we still get people like Michael Moore, *4 years later* complaining that Bush didn't win.
Honestly, I find it sickening that people like Kerry and Moore think we need election inspectors for 2004. We aren't some 3rd world country hell-bent on rigging an election so that a dictator who has been in power for 20-30 years can remain in power (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.). It really bothers me that these people have the audacity to claim we need election inspectors. The US is the only country that has had peaceful transition of power for over 200 years. Yet, now they are saying we don't even know how to hold a fair election? We wrote the rules on how to have a fair election!
But even so, Moore is gonna be in Florida "supervising" the election. And by "supervising" I mean doing everything possible to make sure Kerry wins. I can see it now, when Bush does win, Moore will first ask for tons of recounts, then he will once again be declared the winner. Then Moore will be out there saying Bush was not "reelected" because he was never elected in the first place... It's sad that we'll have another 4 years of Moore's bickering, but I'm willing to accept that if it means Bush remains President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talrias
Lurker
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 163
Location: :noitacoL
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2004 12:24pm Post subject: |
|
|
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, mregit.
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2004 12:41pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Not like it ended there though. All the liberals still say the only reason the supreme court decided the way they did was because the conservative judges wanted Bush to win. So we still get people like Michael Moore, *4 years later* complaining that Bush didn't win. |
More than Moore... look at the speeches Gore and Sharpton gave, and the response by the crowd. I find it totally amazing that they have taken a NON EVENT - a standard Florida election that they lost fair and square - and successfully turned it into the evil Bush family stealing the vote from poor black people. What is even more amazing is, there were REAL instances of voter fraud in OTHER parts of the country during that election, but nary a word on the news about them - because it was the Dems doing the dirty deeds.
| Quote: | | Honestly, I find it sickening that people like Kerry and Moore think we need election inspectors for 2004. |
Don't kid yourself. They know we don't. This is just more of the same propaganda, designed to make it look like the ruling party is SO CORRUPT the elections will be tainted unless you have the Sainted Democrats and their UN Socialist Dictator allies watching us. Its one more little thing, in a mountain of little things, that they hope will bring them back into DC.
| Quote: | | It's sad that we'll have another 4 years of Moore's bickering, but I'm willing to accept that if it means Bush remains President. |
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't vote for Kerry if he was up against Hillary... but Bush tries to be a bit too PC and in doing so he is coming off weak and misinformed - serious mistakes that will have long term consequences. I don't think he IS weak... I think he knows the score and knows what he has to do. But its time he stopped this apologetic Religion of Peace bs, and starts to lock down our borders and give the rabblerousers a one way ticket back to their own hellish corner of earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VVar
none
Joined: 07 Nov 2003
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2004 1:28pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't vote for Kerry if he was up against Hillary |
Now now mregit, let's not get too carried away!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
