The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

Bals, I think he was talking about WMDs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And should that path be forced upon us, there will be serious consequences. There will be serious consequences for the dictator in Iraq. And there will be serious consequences for any Iraqi general or soldier who were to use weapons of mass destruction on our troops or on innocent lives within Iraq. (Applause.) Should any Iraqi officer or soldier receive an order from Saddam Hussein, or his sons, or any of the killers who occupy the high levels of their government, my advice is, don't follow that order. Because if you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal. <span id='postcolor'>

Press Release transcript from the Whitehouse

It makes much more sense. Bush wouldn't be crazy enough to give out such an order before the war. He would be sentencing captured American soldiers to the same treatement.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 22 2003,15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bals, I think he was talking about WMDs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And should that path be forced upon us, there will be serious consequences. There will be serious consequences for the dictator in Iraq. And there will be serious consequences for any Iraqi general or soldier who were to use weapons of mass destruction on our troops or on innocent lives within Iraq. (Applause.) Should any Iraqi officer or soldier receive an order from Saddam Hussein, or his sons, or any of the killers who occupy the high levels of their government, my advice is, don't follow that order. Because if you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal. <span id='postcolor'>

Press Release transcript from the Whitehouse

It makes much more sense. Bush wouldn't be crazy enough to give out such an order before the war. He would be sentencing captured American soldiers to the same treatement.<span id='postcolor'>

Thanks

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 22 2003,15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bals, I think he was talking about WMDs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And should that path be forced upon us, there will be serious consequences. There will be serious consequences for the dictator in Iraq. And there will be serious consequences for any Iraqi general or soldier who were to use weapons of mass destruction on our troops or on innocent lives within Iraq. (Applause.) Should any Iraqi officer or soldier receive an order from Saddam Hussein, or his sons, or any of the killers who occupy the high levels of their government, my advice is, don't follow that order. Because if you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal. <span id='postcolor'>

Press Release transcript from the Whitehouse

It makes much more sense. Bush wouldn't be crazy enough to give out such an order before the war. He would be sentencing captured American soldiers to the same treatement.<span id='postcolor'>

An order to do what?

I hope Bush is not crazy enough to imply all Iraqi defenders are war criminals. As I and you said, that would subject the U.S. personnel to the same treatment.

EDIT: I must split to class...

[FSPilot 0]

Wow, I had no idea the sanctions were so thorough.

And Balschoiw, I definately do NOT support president Bush with that statement. Those troops are only trying to protect themselves and their familys from Saddams wrath. They're not war criminals.

I think I'm done in this thread. I wanted to get a good view of what other people's opinions were and I think I've accomplished that. Now we're just rehashing old arguments and not going anywhere. I'll just sit and wait for something to happen to decide and post again.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 22 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Jan. 22 2003,06:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't more media outlets talk about this import list ?The only thing I have seen about this import list is from cnn,that they can't import water pumps.So they have to drink dirty water.Which causes lots of problems.Now why don't they tell us about this other stuff ?<span id='postcolor'>

Because it's not something Americans would really like to know, and the media wouldn't want them to know either... that's what it's always like. You Americans barely get any international story covered properly. Unless it's some foreign disaster.\

EDIT:

That Huntsville story

here

You may also watch the .ram file there<span id='postcolor'>

I assume you are speaking of the "major" networks and not the umpteen thousand other sources that are available.

The problem isn't that it is not covered properly. The problem is most people just don't put the extra effort into it to find out more. They prefer their 30 second blurbs.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 22 2003,21:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 22 2003,15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bals, I think he was talking about WMDs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And should that path be forced upon us, there will be serious consequences. There will be serious consequences for the dictator in Iraq. And there will be serious consequences for any Iraqi general or soldier who were to use weapons of mass destruction on our troops or on innocent lives within Iraq. (Applause.) Should any Iraqi officer or soldier receive an order from Saddam Hussein, or his sons, or any of the killers who occupy the high levels of their government, my advice is, don't follow that order. Because if you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal. <span id='postcolor'>

Press Release transcript from the Whitehouse

It makes much more sense. Bush wouldn't be crazy enough to give out such an order before the war. He would be sentencing captured American soldiers to the same treatement.<span id='postcolor'>

An order to do what?

I hope Bush is not crazy enough to imply all Iraqi defenders are war criminals. As I and you said, that would subject the U.S. personnel to the same treatment.

EDIT: I must split to class...<span id='postcolor'>

You're not understanding...

The jist isn't that no soldiers can follow any order from Saddam. What Bush was refering to is the use of WMD against civilians/soldiers.

Any soldier that is given an order to say, gas the 101st, and precedes with that order, will be considered a "war criminal."

*relevant parts highlighted*

[FSPilot 0]

Oh, well thats different.

[Akira 0]

Found the Table Of Contents of the Iraqi declaration, but not the actual 12,000 pages.

Table Of Contents

Also found this interesting link:

World At War

You'll notice Iraq is considered "At War."

EDIT: World At War resources are "dated."

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,17:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're not understanding...

The jist isn't that no soldiers can follow any order from Saddam. What Bush was refering to is the use of WMD against civilians/soldiers.

Any soldier that is given an order to say, gas the 101st, and precedes with that order, will be considered a "war criminal."

*relevant parts highlighted*<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry pal, but Bush has just made another mistake speaking then. That is not the meaning of the sentence, even if that's what he tried to say. Hopefully.

The relevant part is that you have to correct his speech.

[peanuckle_00 0]

Let me start off by saying I'm American. After Iraq I expect us to be going to Korea. Washington is going to war because they don't want Saddam to make the first move. They consider that he's already made the first move. Saddam justified invading Kuwait because of unpaid debts and we said he couldn't. Now we're saying he didn't fill his end of the bargain from when we whooped him then. Now Korea is going to have nukes no matter what we say and Washington doesn't like that. What reason do we have to tell them not to have nukes anyways. We have nukes. I think nuclear bombs should be outlawed in war like gas was. I also think North Korea has a pretty fair case because they are held to what i consider unfair terms. Any peace accord that says you can't have nukes but another country can doesn't seem fair but I don't know the exact terms and conditions of the accord so don't hold my opinion as totally true.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,17:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 22 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Jan. 22 2003,06:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't more media outlets talk about this import list ?The only thing I have seen about this import list is from cnn,that they can't import water pumps.So they have to drink dirty water.Which causes lots of problems.Now why don't they tell us about this other stuff ?<span id='postcolor'>

Because it's not something Americans would really like to know, and the media wouldn't want them to know either... that's what it's always like. You Americans barely get any international story covered properly. Unless it's some foreign disaster.\

EDIT:

That Huntsville story

here

You may also watch the .ram file there<span id='postcolor'>

I assume you are speaking of the "major" networks and not the umpteen thousand other sources that are available.

The problem isn't that it is not covered properly. The problem is most people just don't put the extra effort into it to find out more. They prefer their 30 second blurbs.<span id='postcolor'>

No way, the major networks should cover the important stories better!!! They already spend 80% of their airtime on Iraq and the "War on Terror by Terror", why not do a good job and actually give the news, not biased opinions and selected comfy news.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 23 2003,00:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,17:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're not understanding...

The jist isn't that no soldiers can follow any order from Saddam. What Bush was refering to is the use of WMD against civilians/soldiers.

Any soldier that is given an order to say, gas the 101st, and precedes with that order, will be considered a "war criminal."

*relevant parts highlighted*<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry pal, but Bush has just made another mistake speaking then. That is not the meaning of the sentence, even if that's what he tried to say. Hopefully.

The relevant part is that you have to correct his speech. <span id='postcolor'>

Ummm...sorry pal. Being an English major (and horrible speller) as well as a native speaker, that IS the meaning of the sentence. His statement was originally misqouted by Bals (can't spell full name) and taken up with gusto. Denoir was kind enough to post the ENTIRE context of the sentence. But instead of realizing that some people were mistaken, they instead just swing to a different attack.

You misread, and misunderstood the sentence. Bush did not make a mistake this time.

You only took the second part of his speech (after the applause). You failed to take in context the sentence with the previous sentence and paragraph.

This is not a written formal paper, but a speech (as in spoken). No one speaks in proper English because it will literally sound funny. That is why there are "Speech" courses and "Written Communication" courses.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,18:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 23 2003,00:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,17:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're not understanding...

The jist isn't that no soldiers can follow any order from Saddam. What Bush was refering to is the use of WMD against civilians/soldiers.

Any soldier that is given an order to say, gas the 101st, and precedes with that order, will be considered a "war criminal."

*relevant parts highlighted*<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry pal, but Bush has just made another mistake speaking then. That is not the meaning of the sentence, even if that's what he tried to say. Hopefully.

The relevant part is that you have to correct his speech. <span id='postcolor'>

Ummm...sorry pal. Being an English major (and horrible speller) as well as a native speaker, that IS the meaning of the sentence. His statement was originally misqouted by Bals (can't spell full name) and taken up with gusto. Denoir was kind enough to post the ENTIRE context of the sentence. But instead of realizing that some people were mistaken, they instead just swing to a different attack.

You misread, and misunderstood the sentence. Bush did not make a mistake this time.

You only took the second part of his speech (after the applause). You failed to take in context the sentence with the previous sentence and paragraph.

This is not a written formal paper, but a speech (as in spoken). No one speaks in proper English because it will literally sound funny. That is why there are "Speech" courses and "Written Communication" courses.<span id='postcolor'>

First of all, you major in English if you say so, so what year are you in?

No... what he should have said then was:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And should that path be forced upon us, there will be serious consequences. There will be serious consequences for the dictator in Iraq. And there will be serious consequences for any Iraqi general or soldier who were to use weapons of mass destruction on our troops or on innocent lives within Iraq. (Applause.) Should any Iraqi officer or soldier receive such an order from Saddam Hussein, or his sons, or any of the killers who occupy the high levels of their government, my advice is, don't follow that order. Because if you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal.<span id='postcolor'>

You can't spin this, it was an error or just the fact that Bush is a pretty big moron. Either one.

EDIT: If the topic of the ENTIRE speech was "orders on using WMD" then I would accept your "analysis".

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 23 2003,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,17:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 22 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Jan. 22 2003,06:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't more media outlets talk about this import list ?The only thing I have seen about this import list is from cnn,that they can't import water pumps.So they have to drink dirty water.Which causes lots of problems.Now why don't they tell us about this other stuff ?<span id='postcolor'>

Because it's not something Americans would really like to know, and the media wouldn't want them to know either... that's what it's always like. You Americans barely get any international story covered properly. Unless it's some foreign disaster.\

EDIT:

That Huntsville story

here

You may also watch the .ram file there<span id='postcolor'>

I assume you are speaking of the "major" networks and not the umpteen thousand other sources that are available.

The problem isn't that it is not covered properly. The problem is most people just don't put the extra effort into it to find out more. They prefer their 30 second blurbs.<span id='postcolor'>

No way, the major networks should cover the important stories better!!! They already spend 80% of their airtime on Iraq and the "War on Terror by Terror", why not do a good job and actually give the news, not biased opinions and selected comfy news.<span id='postcolor'>

You again misunderstand what I am saying.

I agree with you that the networks cover news poorly.

But your sentence included "You Americans barely get any international story covered properly." which is a sweeping generalization and boarderline rascist and prejudicial, as your sentence stands.

There are sources all over the US that properly cover international news, including BBC news and the Mcneil-Leher News on PBS, and including hundreds of news papers, magazines and radio shows. The Networks are a mere fraction of the number of information outlets available.

And as I said. The problem isn't that the news isn't covered. The problem is most people don't go looking for it.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,18:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But your sentence included "You Americans barely get any international story covered properly." which is a sweeping generalization and boarderline rascist and prejudicial, as your sentence stands.<span id='postcolor'>

Bullocks!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And as I said. The problem isn't that the news isn't covered. The problem is most people don't go looking for it.<span id='postcolor'> No, Nein, Niet, Nie, is that clear?

People tune in to the major networks because they expect to see the news reported properly! THey do figure htey put in work to hear the news when they turn on CNN or Microsoft News, and htey are putting in work, they _should_ get news that is properly covered and unbiased.

EDIT: I am sooo sick of you teenage americans playing little games with what is being said here. So many BS arguments here it's disturbing. Remember my argument for "naming comment stupid" = "naming person stupid"? That's what I'm talking about, that's the kind of crapola reasoning that this thread is full of.

[llauma 0]

Pakistan received $3.5million in aid from USA before 9/11 and $1.3billion after...

Not strange that they let the US forces use their military facilities.

Pakistan has developed nukes and cruise missiles, and did harbour many terrorists. Yet they accepted that but not Iraq, even thou they have no proof of WMD's, at least not what they have shown.

[Balschoiw 0]

I am sorry that I didnt see the whole context of the speech Bush held in St. Louis. I did so right now.

And I also heard what Rumsfeld had to say about France and Germany today. He classified us as "old europe" that doesnt count much anymore. He said that eastern european countries (that are in fact not in the EU by now) are the ones that like US so the "old europe" opinion doesnt count much anymore.

This will keep the US foreign ministry very busy the next days. What is he after ? To discredit countries that dont support war ?

What happened ?

German foreign minister Fischer said that there is no support for a war right now. He said that UN weapon inspectors must be given time to finish their investigations.

Same did French foreign minister De Villepin.

Rumsfeld now says that France and Germany are a problem. What is next. Will the US bomb us cause we dont agree to a war ? We are a problem now. Funny.

He also said that the vast majority of other countries is on the US side and shares their opinions on the war on Iraq which is in fact a big lie to the american public.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,18:56)

But your sentence included "You Americans barely get any international story covered properly." which is a sweeping generalization and boarderline rascist and prejudicial, as your sentence stands.

Bullocks! <span id='postcolor'>

Bullocks? No. If I am called a rascist for calling the Japanese furocious fighters, then that, following logic naturally, is just as rascist if not more so.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote

And as I said. The problem isn't that the news isn't covered. The problem is most people don't go looking for it.

No, Nein, Niet, Nie, is that clear?

People tune in to the major networks because they expect to see the news reported properly! THey do figure htey put in work to hear the news when they turn on CNN or Microsoft News, and htey are putting in work, they _should_ get news that is properly covered and unbiased. <span id='postcolor'>

Oh. Well let me step aside for the expert on American psyche and opinion. You know nothing. The fact is most of America knows CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, and ABC are shite, but watch it out of convenience, and lack the desire to check other information outlets, like the radio, TV, and print, where just as many American agencies have unbiased full coverage.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: I am sooo sick of you teenage americans playing little games with what is being said here. So many BS arguments here it's disturbing. Remember my argument for "naming comment stupid" = "naming person stupid"? That's what I'm talking about, that's the kind of crapola reasoning that this thread is full of.

<span id='postcolor'>

First off little boy, I am almost thirty, and the only one acting like a child here is you, throwing a tantrum everytime someone disagrees with you or points out a mistake in your points or misconceived notions. The fact is you misunderstood the sentence and even after the fact being pointed out, were unwilling to admit the fact that you were "wrong". Balschoiw did. I'm sure you will retailiate with the "blinded patriot" arguement that is one of your favorites, despite the fact I have shown time adn time again that I am far from that. Oh well. Now go to your corner for a "Time Out" until you can calm down and stop flaming.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I also heard what Rumsfeld had to say about France and Germany today. He classified us as "old europe" that doesnt count much anymore. He said that eastern european countries (that are in fact not in the EU by now) are the ones that like US so the "old europe" opinion doesnt count much anymore.

This will keep the US foreign ministry very busy the next days. What is he after ? To discredit countries that dont support war ?

What happened ?

German foreign minister Fischer said that there is no support for a war right now. He said that UN weapon inspectors must be given time to finish their investigations.

Same did French foreign minister De Villepin.

Rumsfeld now says that France and Germany are a problem. What is next. Will the US bomb us cause we dont agree to a war ? We are a problem now. Funny.

He also said that the vast majority of other countries is on the US side and shares their opinions on the war on Iraq which is in fact a big lie to the american public.<span id='postcolor'>

Rumsfeld scares the livin' hell outta me. Everyday he says something that makes me cringe and further strengthens the unilateral undertones of this whole mess.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pakistan received $3.5million in aid from USA before 9/11 and $1.3billion after...

Not strange that they let the US forces use their military facilities.

Pakistan has developed nukes and cruise missiles, and did harbour many terrorists. Yet they accepted that but not Iraq, even thou they have no proof of WMD's, at least not what they have shown.<span id='postcolor'>

Saw a figure somewhere that Nepal actually got the largest aid increase for the "War On Terrorism."

Not sure whether Pakistan is in the Non-Proliferation Treaty or not. Or India for that matter. Will have to look it up. Both India and Pakistan harboured terrorists, but they are mostly gunning for each other. I guess the lesser of two evils again. As long as you are right next door to aa future attack, and agree to the US coming in...it is forgiven.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 23 2003,011)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, Nein, Niet, Nie, is that clear?

People tune in to the major networks because they expect to see the news reported properly!  THey do figure htey put in work to hear the news when they turn on CNN or Microsoft News, and htey are putting in work, they _should_ get news that is properly covered and unbiased.  

EDIT: I am sooo sick of you teenage americans playing little games with what is being said here.  So many BS arguments here it's disturbing.  Remember my argument for "naming comment stupid" = "naming person stupid"?  That's what I'm talking about, that's the kind of crapola reasoning that this thread is full of.<span id='postcolor'>

People tune in expecting to be entertained. The only obligation a private company has is to keep its consumers (in this case, the viewers) entertained, and by proxy, staying in business. Fair, balanced reporting is of course an admirable goal, but it doesn't pay the bills on a 24 hour news network. The responsibility lies with the consumer (viewer), to NOT WATCH the crap, because -and I swear to God this works- if you DON"T WATCH IT, they WON"T MAKE IT. A private company, even a news gathering company, has only one obligation, and that is to its investors. And that means showing a profit. If they start seeing that infotainment doesn't sell, they won't do it anymore. Simple, huh? And, as a side-bonus we get to cut out all that moral bullshit that you love to pull out when dealing with American institutions. Instead of working up a fine sense of moral outrage (which in your case bn880, I'm sure was developed from years and years of sitting on your ass, too busy bitching about the status quo to actually do anything about it), you short-circuit the problem, and suddenly I have results, and you have your oh-so-irritating moral rants, just noone to rant against.

You have an incredible moral double standard that automatically kicks into effect when anything American enters the conversation. Propaganda masquerading as news is a part of life, until it is an American news agency that is runnning a propaganda story. Then, you go absolutely nuts about what a sacred responsibility news-gathering/dissemination is. Now, if you can lose your double-standards, maybe we can talk. As it is currently, I'm forced to argue at you from the base of your ivory tower of moral purity. How's the view from up there?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not sure whether Pakistan is in the Non-Proliferation Treaty or not. Or India for that matter. Will have to look it up. Both India and Pakistan harboured terrorists, but they are mostly gunning for each other. I guess the lesser of two evils again. As long as you are right next door to aa future attack, and agree to the US coming in...it is forgiven.

<span id='postcolor'>

The only problem that arises using that "less evil" thing is that it makes it very hard for others than US to negotiate about their issue with India at the moment. The problem is Pakistan (government) now says that they are best friends to US and therefore legitimized with their actions. See the point ?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 23 2003,01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not sure whether Pakistan is in the Non-Proliferation Treaty or not. Or India for that matter. Will have to look it up. Both India and Pakistan harboured terrorists, but they are mostly gunning for each other. I guess the lesser of two evils again. As long as you are right next door to aa future attack, and agree to the US coming in...it is forgiven.

<span id='postcolor'>

The only problem that arises using that "less evil" thing is that it makes it very hard for others than US to negotiate about their issue with India at the moment. The problem is Pakistan (government) now says that they are best friends to US and therefore legitimized with their actions. See the point ?<span id='postcolor'>

Oh I see the point. Always have.

The same thing has caused problems in Cuba, China of WW2, Iran-Iraq, 1980s Afghanistan, and Russia of WW2.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,19:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh. Well let me step aside for the expert on American psyche and opinion. You know nothing. The fact is most of America knows CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, and ABC are shite, but watch it out of convenience, and lack the desire to check other information outlets, like the radio, TV, and print, where just as many American agencies have unbiased full coverage.<span id='postcolor'>

You know what I can say to that? Piss off! And, furthermore, you pompus ass, I will have to ignore you from now on, since I know _nothing_. Or did you also make a foolish mistake writing that?

Maybe I don't know everything about the psyche of all Americans, obviously, but I probably know more about yours than you do.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First off little boy, I am almost thirty, and the only one acting like a child here is you, throwing a tantrum everytime someone disagrees with you or points out a mistake in your points or misconceived notions. The fact is you misunderstood the sentence and even after the fact being pointed out, were unwilling to admit the fact that you were "wrong". Balschoiw did. I'm sure you will retailiate with the "blinded patriot" arguement that is one of your favorites, despite the fact I have shown time adn time again that I am far from that. Oh well. Now go to your corner for a "Time Out" until you can calm down and stop flaming.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, actually I do not throw a tantrum every time someone disagrees, I have JUST said how fed up I am with your immunity to logic and reasoning. Second, if you are almost thirty you don't come across as it at all, sadly. Third, you made another mistake, I am not a little boy, younger than you, yes. And you say to major in English but you never mentioned what year you are in, or have you actually graduated? Either way, it's not good news to see how illogical you still are.

PS: To KNOW nothing is to know everything. One day, maybe you can figure this out.

[Akira 0]

Napoleonic WMD?

Interesting article.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 22 2003,19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You have an incredible moral double standard that automatically kicks into effect when anything American enters the conversation. Propaganda masquerading as news is a part of life, until it is an American news agency that is runnning a propaganda story. Then, you go absolutely nuts about what a sacred responsibility news-gathering/dissemination is. Now, if you can lose your double-standards, maybe we can talk. As it is currently, I'm forced to argue at you from the base of your ivory tower of moral purity. How's the view from up there?<span id='postcolor'>

This is partly what I think of you... so?

Why should I not stand up for whats actually right, all of you here arguing with me are trying to eliminate the need to discuss logic, and eliminate the need for the media to be objective. don't you have any morals, is there no shred of intelligence left?

EDIT: Make personal attacks on me, and you are simply saying you can't use logic to discuss, maybe it is because I actually make sense?? Just like Denoir and Bals?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 23 2003,02:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,19:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh. Well let me step aside for the expert on American psyche and opinion. You know nothing. The fact is most of America knows CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, and ABC are shite, but watch it out of convenience, and lack the desire to check other information outlets, like the radio, TV, and print, where just as many American agencies have unbiased full coverage.<span id='postcolor'>

You know what I can say to that? Piss off! And, furthermore, you pompus ass, I will have to ignore you from now on, since I know _nothing_. Or did you also make a foolish mistake writing that?

Maybe I don't know everything about the psyche of all Americans, obviously, but I probably know more about yours than you do.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First off little boy, I am almost thirty, and the only one acting like a child here is you, throwing a tantrum everytime someone disagrees with you or points out a mistake in your points or misconceived notions. The fact is you misunderstood the sentence and even after the fact being pointed out, were unwilling to admit the fact that you were "wrong". Balschoiw did. I'm sure you will retailiate with the "blinded patriot" arguement that is one of your favorites, despite the fact I have shown time adn time again that I am far from that. Oh well. Now go to your corner for a "Time Out" until you can calm down and stop flaming.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, actually I do not throw a tantrum every time someone disagrees, I have JUST said how fed up I am with your immunity to logic and reasoning. Second, if you are almost thirty you don't come across as it at all, sadly. Third, you made another mistake, I am not a little boy, younger than you, yes. And you say to major in English but you never mentioned what year you are in, or have you actually graduated? Either way, it's not good news to see how illogical you still are.

PS: To KNOW nothing is to know everything. One day, maybe you can figure this out.<span id='postcolor'>

Whatever you say chief.