Us presidential election 2004

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Saddam was NO threat to his neighbours

Kuwait... I'm sure they would agree... as would Iran....

Oh, and you can be sure that Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice would have agreed too:

Quote[/b] ]“He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.â€

-- Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

“But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.â€

-- Condoleezza Rice, July 29, 2001

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Saddam was NO threat to his neighbours

Kuwait... I'm sure they would agree... as would Iran....

Oh, and you can be sure that Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice would have agreed too:

Quote[/b] ]“He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.â€

-- Colin Powell, <span style='color:red'>February 24, 2001</span>

“But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.â€

-- Condoleezza Rice, <span style='color:red'>July 29, 2001</span>

Context of 'February 24, 2001':

Quote[/b] ]Secretary of State Colin Powell travels to Cairo and meets with his counterpart Amre Moussa. During a press conference, Powell says: “He [saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.†[uS Department of State, 2/24/03; The Mirror, 9/22/03; Associated Press, 9/25/03] Some nineteen months later, when Powell is asked to explain why his assessment of Iraq had so drastically changed over such a short span of time, Powell says, “... I did not say he (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) didn't have weapons of mass destruction.... He was a threat then. The extent of his holdings were yet to be determined. It was early in the administration and the fact of the matter is it was long before 9/11 (the date of the 2001 attacks on the United States).... A lot changed between February 2001 (and the invasion), but I don't find anything inconsistent between what I said then and what I've said all along.†[uS Department of State, 9/25/03; Washington Post, 9/26/03; Associated Press, 9/25/03]

Context of 'July 29, 2001' (CNN transcript):

Quote[/b] ]RICE: Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly. And he has reserved the right to respond when that threat becomes one that he wishes no longer to tolerate. I think it's always best not to speculate about the grounds or the circumstances under which one would do that.

But I can be certain of this, and the world can be certain of this: Saddam Hussein is on the radar screen for the administration. The administration is working hard with a number of our friends and allies to have a policy that is broad; that does look at the sanctions as something that should be restructured so that we have smart sanctions that go after the regime, not after the Iraqi people; that does look at the role of opposition in creating an environment and a regime in Baghdad that the people of Iraq deserve, rather than the one that they have; and one that looks at use of military force in a more resolute manner, and not just a manner of tit-for-tat with him every day.

KING: Well, this latest standoff is a reminder that the United States and its allies, principally Great Britain, have been at this for 10 years now, still patrolling the no-fly zone. The president himself addressed that earlier in the week. Let's listen to what the president had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, we're going to keep the pressure on Iraq, the no-fly zone strategy is still in place. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is still a menace and a problem, and the United States and our allies must put the pressure on him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that.

[denoir 0]

Hmm.. your belief that somehow Saddam would of been reaccepted. That is like saying Hitler (yes, I'm using him) put under the same Saddam "conditions" (pushed back to his border and sanctions applied) could of reaccepted in the 1950s. Nothing is not that easy...

Saddam had no WMD which means that at one point when the inspections were completed, the sanctions would have been lifted. It's not my belief, it's a legal fact defined by the UN resolutions that set up the sanctions in the first place.

And no, you can't compare it to Hitler, because Saddam, unlike Hitler did not opt for global conquest. The sanctions against him were set up as a motivation for him to cooperate with the UN inspections. They were not there to punish Saddam for being a bad man.

It's funny to see how America has fallen victim to its own propaganda. The image of Saddam as the ultimate bad guy was created in '91 as part of the PR campaign for the war. Unike the latest Iraq war, people were far more worried (before the fighting) that it would turn into another Vietnam. So there was an unbelievable onslaught of propaganda on all levels (again, far more than in the latest war).

Saddam was portrayed as the most evil man on Earth - and that image stuck.

In reality however Saddam is a pretty mediocre 'bad guy'. There are dozens of leaders in the world that are far worse than him in terms of threat to world peace, human rights abuses etc

Monsieur Gaddafi is such an example - a man who has some very serious history with supporting international terrorism.

Accepting Gaddafi back into the international community is a far larger step than accepting Saddam would have been.

[Supah 0]

Quote[/b] ]Saddam was NO threat to his neighbours

Kuwait... I'm sure they would agree... as would Iran....

That was in 91 and before when he was still actively armed and supported by the US. Or havent you seen the image if Rumsfeld and co partying with the saddams? Everything for oil right? When the last war started he was no longer able to project power beyond his own borders and was no threat to his neighbours.

Quote[/b] ]erm.... I said if Hitler was pushed to his border and sanctions applied like what happened to Iraq....

Yes I know what you said and it still as big a load of nonsense ever. You simply can't compare the two.

[xawery 0]

Hmm.. your belief that somehow Saddam would of been reaccepted. That is like saying Hitler (yes, I'm using him) put under the same Saddam "conditions" (pushed back to his border and sanctions applied) could of reaccepted in the 1950s. Nothing is not that easy...

Godwin's Law, anyone?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]In reality however Saddam is a pretty mediocre 'bad guy'. There are dozens of leaders in the world that are far worse than him in terms of threat to world peace, human rights abuses etc

Monsieur Gaddafi is such an example - a man who has some very serious history with supporting international terrorism.

Accepting Gaddafi back into the international community is a far larger step than accepting Saddam would have been.

Saddam is a mediocre 'bad guy' because he purposely had hundreds of thousands (some say more than a million) civilians and etc. killed...

Quote[/b] ] Yes I know what you said and it still as big a load of nonsense ever. You simply can't compare the two.

Lets see:

1. Both were dictators. Granted, Saddam got 99.9% of vote during his election.

2. One was against communism (America's enemy after WWII) and one, you can say, was against becoming a "Islamic state" (i.e. Iran) (America is against).

3. Both tried to kill off a minority.

4. Both suppressed political groups that did not fit their mold.

5. Invaded another country....

6. Both of them are crazy.

7. Under their rule, the people were "happy"...

.....etc...etc....etc...

[walker 0]

Hi billybob2002

Quote[/b] ]Saddam is a mediocre 'bad guy' because he purposely had hundreds of thousands (some say more than a million) civilians and etc. killed...

When Sadam was commiting the genocide of the Marsh Arabs members of TBA made him an allie.

When Sadam was killing millions of his own people members of TBA sold him the WMD to do it.

After Sadam Gassed those in Halabjha members of TBA shook his still bloody hand and sold him more WMD and the equipment to do it with.

When Kuwait was invaded and members of TBA had encouraged the Iraqis to revolt TBA refused to destroy the Republican Guard that went on to put down the rebelion.

When the Iraqis pleaded with the west to aid them completing Sadam's overthrow members of TBA turned a death ear even though they themselves had ecouraged the Iraqis to revolt

When thousands were killed on the streets of Najaf and Basra in that revolt TBA did nothing.

When the Kurds in that revolt were being driven from Iraq and freezing to death by the hundreds of thousands in the icy mountain passes TBA did not want to help and told everyone to stay out and it was only because the UK and other European nations ignored them and got involved and started letting in US media teams to film the suffering that any US aid came.

TBA cannot claim anything about Iraqis being saved by the removal of Sadam it was far too complicit in those deaths.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]When Sadam was commiting the genocide of the Marsh Arabs members of TBA made him an allie.

When Sadam was killing millions of his own people members of TBA sold him the WMD to do it.

After Sadam Gassed those in Halabjha members of TBA shook his still bloody hand and sold him more WMD and the equipment to do it with.

When Kuwait was invaded and members of TBA had encouraged the Iraqis to revolt TBA refused to destroy the Republican Guard that went on to put down the rebelion.

When the Iraqis pleaded with the west to aid them completing Sadam's overthrow members of TBA turned a death ear even though they themselves had ecouraged the Iraqis to revolt

When thousands were killed on the streets of Najaf and Basra in that revolt TBA did nothing.

When the Kurds in that revolt were being driven from Iraq and freezing to death by the hundreds of thousands in the icy mountain passes TBA did not want to help and told everyone to stay out and it was only because the UK and other European nations ignored them and got involved and started letting in US media teams to film the suffering that any US aid came.

TBA cannot claim anything about Iraqis being saved by the removal of Sadam it was far too complicit in those deaths.

Kind Regards Walker

It is better to be late... Some countries that wish to named nameless that also supported Saddam and were against the iraqi war. What does that make them? That is why pencils have erasers...

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]In reality however Saddam is a pretty mediocre 'bad guy'. There are dozens of leaders in the world that are far worse than him in terms of threat to world peace, human rights abuses etc

Monsieur Gaddafi is such an example - a man who has some very serious history with supporting international terrorism.

Accepting Gaddafi back into the international community is a far larger step than accepting Saddam would have been.

Saddam is a mediocre 'bad guy' because he purposely had hundreds of thousands (some say more than a million) civilians and etc. killed...  

Human rights watch: War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention

From the conclusion:

Quote[/b] ]

In sum, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention.

Quote[/b] ]1. Both were dictators. Granted, Saddam got 99.9% of vote during his election.

The Nazis came to power through real democratic elections, while the Baathists came to power through a coup d'etat.

Quote[/b] ]2. One was against communism (America's enemy after WWII) and one,you can say, was against becoming a "Islamic state" (i.e. Iran) (America is against).

http://www.ca.org/ Get help.

Quote[/b] ]3. Both tried to kill off a minority.

No, Saddam never tried to exterminate a whole nationality, religion or race. He indiscriminately killed Kurds in the areas that tried to rebel against him - but he never tried or had the intention of killing all Kurds. Hitler's "final solution" however was the killing of all Jews in Europe. It was not because they rebelled against him, but because they were Jews.

Quote[/b] ]4. Both suppressed political groups that did not fit their mold.

And tell me, which of the ca 50 dictators around the world don't do that? Or if you want to be more specific, name any country in the Mid-East that doesn't do that.

Quote[/b] ]5. Invaded another country....

Look who's talking. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was just as illegal as the US invasion of Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]6. Both of them are crazy.

Oh really? Given your posts, I'd say that they were less crazy than you. That isn't saying much though. Do you have any medical foundation for your claims that Saddam is crazy?

Oh, oh, in your list of Unbelievably Stupid Comparisonsâ„¢, you forgot to mention that they both had mustaches!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]From the conclusion:

erm... I was not talking about that but how can you call him mediocre...

Quote[/b] ]The Nazis came to power through real democratic elections, while the Baathists came to power through a coup d'etat.

He was still a dictator.... Also, it should be Saddam got 99.9% of the vote during his re-election..

Quote[/b] ]

Get help.

insults.... People like to point out that Saddam's Iraq was secular and did not "like" Iran.... Granted, Germany was fascist but they sure did not like the soviets....

Quote[/b] ]Look who's talking. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was just as illegal as the US invasion of Iraq.

WoW!!! What does my comparison have to do with that...

Quote[/b] ]

Oh really? Given your posts, I'd say that they were less crazy than you. That isn't saying much though. Do you have any medical foundation for your claims that Saddam is crazy?

insults, again... I love the insults! My uber-european master...

[walker 0]

Hi all

If your in oil get out now the bubble is about to burst a second time.

What is interesting at the moment is that George Bush Junior's speculator buddies bet that the price of Oil would reach 50 dollars a barrel before October they have to boost it to that price or they will be the ones left holding the plumeting stocks. They stand to make big bucks if it reaches that price and the thing that drives up the speculated price is the instability in the world created by George Bush Junior's war in Iraq

The price is not a real reflection of supply, like the ENRON power chrisis that ripped off Californians it is a big con. The price that would reflect current supply is arround 30 dollars.

George Bush Junior recieved millions for his 2000 election campaign from the corrupt NeoConMen of ENRON many of whom were his personal friends like Keneth Lay. The new NeoConMan con is the over inflated oil price. Those same oil billionaires are the supporters and friends of George Bush Junior and TBA; speculator NeoConMen who are contributing millions to the George Bush Junior camapaign and soft money supporters of George Bush Junior. The kind that make fairy tale stories for those who believe they just bought some clothes that are invisable to dumb people.

Just like ENRON did to Californians when they conned them out of billions in a fake energy chrisis; those speculators are ripping off the US citizens at the gas pump with their fake oil shortage.

As soon as it reaches 50 the bubble will burst. Anyone in Oil futures needs to get out now. Get out before it reaches 50 dollars or you will be the one left holding the declineing value oil futures stocks.

Quote[/b] ]Oil surpasses $48 on Iraq violence

LONDON, England -- Oil prices have climbed to another peak on renewed violence in Najaf, Iraq and new signs of strong demand in China and India as their economies expand.

U.S. light crude reached a new high of $48.20 a barrel Thursday.

The New York Mercantile Exchange contract has set record levels in all but one of the past 15 trading sessions.

In London, Brent crude was trading at $43.70 a barrel, up from Wednesday's close of $43.03.

Fierce fighting raged Thursday in Najaf as rebel Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr defied an Iraqi government threat to attack his stronghold in a holy shrine and rejected demands that he end his uprising.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/08/19/oil.price/index.html

If your in oil get out now the bubble is about to burst.

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ] CBS News decided to shelve a 60 Minutes report discussing how the Bush administration was hoodwinked by forged documents into believing that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase enriched uranium from Niger. The network said that the report, by correspondent Ed Bradley, would be "inappropriate" to air during an election campaign. However, Newsweek magazine, which reported that the report was superseded on Sept. 8 by Dan Rather's discredited story about President Bush's National Guard service, noted that the shelved story would have allowed the public to scrutinize "a more consequential forgery [than the phony National Guard papers] that played a role in building the Bush administration's case to invade Iraq." The Associated Press said Sunday that a CBS News spokeswoman would not elaborate on why the report was considered inappropriate.

WTF??

Because Rather got burned, CBS is going to pussy around now. This reminds me of "The Insider" story.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Geoge Bush Junior is going to issue the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve stocks now. Do not buy oil the price is about to drop. If you have Oil Stocks get out now George Bush Junior cannot allow it to get so high just before the election.

US Electors will not put up with the Oil Gouge.

Quote[/b] ]A bubble in crude?

Leanan writes: A minority of analysts thinks oil prices are too high by half and could tumble abruptly.

With the price of oil hitting records nearly every day, a handful of analysts think the market is starting look awfully bubbly, and that the price could correct quicky.

Thursday brought yet another record in the price of a barrel of crude oil, which fetched about $48 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was only a couple of weeks ago that analysts were making bold projections of $50 oil. Now there's talk of it breaking $60.

Oil has skyrocketed some 55 percent in the past year, and a small number of analysts believe that most, if not all, of that gain has been unjustified.

"We continue to believe oil prices will fall hard," Bear Stearns analyst Frederick Leuffer wrote in a note to clients this week. "We forecast an average ... oil price of $25 per barrel in 2005."

Not long ago, that was a consensus forecast. Now it's in the distinct minority.

Most analysts now believe higher prices are justified, citing higher-than expected demand for oil in the world, tight supplies, a higher risk of terror attacks and a growing difficulty in sucking a dwindling supply of oil out of the ground.

Leuffer isn't buying it. In his note, he makes a step-by-step case about why he believes the consensus is wrong.

Yes, global demand is high, he wrote, but it's being exceeded by supply. The evidence is in inventories, which continue to grow around the world, including the United States. The current level of global inventory, about 300 million barrels, is consistent with oil at about $25 per barrel, according to Bear Stearns' research.

"Since January 2004, the correlation between crude oil prices and inventory levels has broken down," Leuffer wrote.

Fear about tight production capacity is also unjustified, he wrote. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which accounts for about 40 percent of the world's oil output, has some 2.1 million barrels per day of excess production capacity, according to Leuffer's estimates, on top of the 2.7 million per day it's already generating in excess of demand.

What's more, non-OPEC supply is higher than ever, and he thinks oil companies are having an easier time getting oil out of the ground than is widely believed.

Leuffer also said that terror attacks and sabotage likely won't cause much of a disruption of the world's oil supply; they haven't in the past.

The troubles of Yukos, Russia's largest oil company, won't affect supply because the Russian government won't allow it, he said -- Russia needs the cash that Yukos' oil generates.

A few other analysts agree with his view that the oil market has begun to bear a striking resemblance to the bubbly tech-stock market of the late 1990s.

"Rumors and speculation have taken over the market," Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit told CNN/Money this week.

Not so sanguine

But most analysts do not.

They agree that there is a hefty "fear premium" built into the price of oil, keeping the price perhaps $10 or more higher than where supply and demand would indicate.

But they don't believe the market can simply afford to remove that premium.

Terror attacks and sabotage could cause significant disruption, depending on where they take place, and traders have to get some insurance for that possibility.

"In a perfect world, you'd take the premium out, and you're looking at an oil price in the lower- to mid-30s," said Bruce Lanni, an analyst with A.G. Edwards & Sons. "But it is not a perfect world."

Most analysts aren't as certain as Leuffer is about OPEC's ability to pump much more oil, or the ease of finding new oil supplies.

Nor do they believe that world inventories are high enough to keep up with skyrocketing demand, particularly in fast-growing markets such as China and India.

"If you take a look at the supply/demand fundamentals in the world, there's not a lot of excess supply available or much coming on line," said Jacques Rousseau, an analyst with Friedman Billings Ramsey.

Meanwhile, after ratcheting up their capacity to suck more oil out of the ground in the 1970s and 1980s, oil companies haven't kept accelerating their capacity growth in recent years, according to George Gaspar, an analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co.

"I don't think the industry has the capacity to expand much beyond the rate at which it's expanding now," Gaspar said. "When you match a relatively constrained capacity to expand against the increasing growth rate of demand for crude oil, it sets the potential course for oil to ultimately go beyond $50 a barrel."

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/19/markets/bubble_crude/index.htm

Kind Regards Walker

[quicksand 0]

Hi all.I am glad to be back to the forums and to see nothing major changed including the impresive debating skill mastered by our friend Billybob highlited even on this page.

I must concede that after spending less then 15 minutes viewing this discussion I am already reconsidering my position towards the Iraqi war after an analogy boardering geniality comparing Saddam with Hitler.

Quote[/b] ]It is better to be late...

This phrase indeed puzzled me but if there is anyone that could clear things up that s certinly you Billybob so would you care to explain.

First of all here is some historical background in connection to what your comment refered to to avoid stirring up any more confusion.

In 1991 Iraq was the scene of one of the most savage rebel quelling that left tens of thousands of Iraqis killed as a direct result of a premeditated deed by the then TBA to turn it s back on the Shiite rebelion breaking their promise and leaving the Iraqi rebels obviously to get sloughtered.

In 2003 TBA started a war against Iraq in a context of no possible humanitarian desaster for the Iraqis with the exception of a brutal invasion and occupation that would continue for months after as there was in 1991,a war that killed tens of thousands more Iraqis and is killing dozens more on a daily basis,leaving the country in ruins unstable and with no resolve in sight.

So now I ll leave it to you to explain the "It s better to be late.." line and how does it fit in the Iraqi context.

[theavonlady 2]

Because Rather got burned

Playing with matches, a boy can get burned............

Dan Rather on Dan Rather.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]This phrase indeed puzzled me but if there is anyone that could clear things up that s certinly you Billybob so would you care to explain.

First of all here is some historical background in connection to what your comment refered to to avoid stirring up any more confusion.

In 1991 Iraq was the scene of one of the most savage rebel quelling that left tens of thousands of Iraqis killed as a direct result of a premeditated deed by the then TBA to turn it s back on the Shiite rebelion breaking their promise and leaving the Iraqi rebels obviously to get sloughtered.

In 2003 TBA started a war against Iraq in a context of no possible humanitarian desaster for the Iraqis with the exception of a brutal invasion and occupation that would continue for months after as there was in 1991,a war that killed tens of thousands more Iraqis and is killing dozens more on a daily basis,leaving the country in ruins unstable and with no resolve in sight.

So now I ll leave it to you to explain the "It s better to be late.." line and how does it fit in the Iraqi context.

It is suppose to be....better late than never...

[billybob2002 0]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html

Quote[/b] ]

No French or German turn on Iraq

By Jo Johnson in Paris, Betrand Benoit in Berlin and James Harding in Washington

Published: September 26 2004 21:13 | Last updated: September 26 2004 21:13

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

"That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters."

Even though Nato last week overcame members' long-running reservations about a training mission to Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there for 300 soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later".

That view reflects the concerns of many EU and Nato officials, who say the dangers in Iraq and the difficulty of extricating troops already there could make European governments reluctant to send personnel, regardless of the outcome of the US election.

A French government official said: "People don't expect that much would change under a Kerry administration, even if things can only get better. We do not anticipate a sudden honeymoon in the event Kerry replaces Bush.

"A lot depends on who is in power in both Washington and Baghdad. If there's change in both countries then it's possible we would re-examine our position, but I don't expect a massive change either way."

A German government spokesman declined to comment on the outcome of the US presidential election. But the feeling in Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's office is that, if anything, Berlin is growing less rather than more likely to change its mind as security conditions deteriorate in Iraq.

Mr Schröder would also be unlikely to renege on his 2002 electoral commitment not to send troops as a new general election looms in 2006.

There is no sign that the German public, which loathes the US president, would accept risking German lives to salvage what is widely seen as Mr Bush's botched war.

In fact, high-ranking German officials are privately concerned at the prospect of Mr Kerry becoming president, arguing it would not change US demands but make it more difficult to reject them.

Both France and Germany, however, have said they would contribute to the reduction of Iraq's debt and participate in economic and environmental development programmes. Berlin already trains Iraqi security forces outside Iraq and France has said it would do so.

Mr Kerry is expected to make Mr Bush's record of alienating foreign capitals and undermining US credibility in the world one of the chief arguments on Thursday night when he confronts the president in the first presidential debate.

The televised debate, which is expected to be watched by more than the 46.6m people who watched the debate in 2000, will focus on foreign policy and national security.

In a speech hammering Mr Bush for his decision to lead the US into Iraq, Mr Kerry said last week that in Afghanistan "I will lead our allies to share the burden."

He continued: "the Bush administration would have you believe that when it comes to our allies, it won't make a difference who is president. They say the Europeans won't help us, no matter what. But I have news for President Bush: just because you can't do something, doesn't mean it can't be done."

The German government continues to oppose sending troops to Iraq under any circumstance.

Berlin was one of Europe's most vocal opponents of the invasion of Iraq and, with sizeable forces in the Balkan and Afghanistan, it has also argued its troops are overstretched.

Although the government did not oppose Nato's decision to start training inside Iraq, it still thinks the deployment is counter- productive.

"Nato personnel will become targets for attacks," one official said on Sunday..

Double-crossed!!!

[walker 0]

Hi all

Companies who bet on oil reaching $50 are talking up the price of oil. The bet was $50 dollars by October. Any one who buys $50 or above that is one of those who will be left holding the oil bubble stock.

This is just the same scam as the ENRON scam of the fake California power chrisis. That was how George Bush Juniors friend Kenneth Lay gouged the Californian electors in the Recall Scam. Keneth Lay and Enron were big contributers to TBA.

The oil speculators are big contributers to TBA that is why George Bush Junior wont talk about oil even though it is costing US voters thousands of Dollars extra this year at the gas pump

Do Not fall for the NeoConMen's Latest con.

Oil Prices are a bubble waiting to burst if you are in oil at $50 or above you are going to get burned

The proper price for oil is arround 30 dollars do not get fooled.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

insults, again... I love the insults! My uber-european master...

Making a stupid post has consequences. And I know you are not that dumb that you weren't aware of how nonsensical your comparison was. Such a post is waste of my time and an insult to my intelligence. Hence the insults directed back at you.

If you by some chance weren't aware of the idiocy of your comparison, then I did you a favour by pointing out how moronic it was.

Anyway:

US"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3693100.stm]US media: The great divide [bBC][/url]

Quote[/b] ]

Leading American television network CBS has recently found itself in an uncomfortable position: Instead of reporting the news, it has become the news.

In early September, it broadcast a report claiming that George W Bush had been the subject of criticism by the man who commanded him when the president was in the National Guard 30 years ago. Unfortunately for the network, the report was based on documents that appear not to have been authentic, forcing Dan Rather, the top CBS newsreader, to apologise.

Critics pounced, including the comic Jay Leno, who described Mr Rather as "the man who put the BS in CBS".

The American public split right down the middle over the scandal, with about 40% demanding that Mr Rather resign, and just over 40% saying the network had been duped and should not be held responsible. The difference of opinion roughly mirrors political identification in the US, where about a third of people label themselves Republicans, a third Democrats and a third independent.

But it also reflects another truth: Americans of all stripes generally put pretty low trust in the media, with conservatives even more suspicious than liberals. And research suggests that each group is increasingly seeking out media that reinforce its point of view.

Fox gains

Fox News, a cable news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, has been the big beneficiary.

In 2000, 18% of Republicans and Democrats told the Pew Research Center for People and the Press that they tuned in to Fox regularly. By this year, that number had risen to 35% among Republicans - but only 21% among Democrats.

Ann Whitlock, a 57-year-old nurse practitioner in Colorado Springs, Colorado, expresses a view common to many liberals.

"I choose not to listen to Fox because I know it's an arm of the Bush media," she says.

More than half of the network's audience now describes itself as conservative, a rise of more than 10 percentage points from four years ago, Pew Research suggests. But even many conservatives dislike the feeling that they are not getting impartial news from the media.

John Rakolta is the CEO of a Detroit-based construction company. He describes himself as a strong Republican - but says he doesn't like bias, even if he agrees with the point of view being expressed.

"I'm conservative, but I'm tired of the conservative media, the liberal media, the New York Times. I trust only a couple of news organisations, like the Wall Street Journal. They go in depth, not just four lines and a cute little snippet."

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page is generally seen as conservative, while that of the New York Times is considered liberal. Ted Terrazas, a small business owner in San Antonio, Texas, is also a Republican and also dislikes what he considers bias.

A fluent Spanish speaker who lives near the Mexican border, Mr Terrazas says that he watches Mexican television coverage of American politics.

"You get a straighter shot when you listen to the Mexican news - not Republican, not Democrat, but straight news - and I think that's what we need more of."

Gloria Andrade DeMarco, a conservative business consultant in San Antonio, says media bias makes her angry.

"Even the poorest of the poor has a TV, so there is a tremendous responsibility for the media to be accountable for what they put forth.

"What worries me is not so much that [the media] do it but why they do it. Present the news, but don't give your own views. Let there be two sides there," she says.

Low trust

Republicans in general place lower trust in the media than Democrats do, Pew Research suggests.

That may explain why only slightly more Republicans than Democrats find Fox News - the cable network of choice for conservatives - to be highly credible.

About 29% of Republicans trusted Fox, while about 26% of Democrats did. Those figures make it the most trusted news source for Republicans - but among the least trusted by Democrats. Overall, CNN remains the most trusted cable network - but only 32% of Pew respondents found it "highly credible", down from nearly 40% in 2000.

Newspapers

Republican party activist Joe Solis of San Antonio says he detects bias in his local newspapers as well.

"There are many editors in South Texas who have definite beliefs about President Bush and they are finding small ways to make him look bad," he claims.

He says he reads the New York Times partly to keep an eye on the opposition - but also praises its news coverage.

"I try to mix up [my newspaper reading] because I want to know what the other side is thinking. I want to know how they are slamming us and painting us as these terrible people.

"The editorial page [of the New York Times] is very biased but believe it or not the news department is somewhat fair in their reporting compared to our local newspaper. They do a better job of presenting the two sides."

Gordon Rose, of Nashville, Tennessee, has a son serving in the marines in Iraq. A backer of George Bush, Mr Rose agrees with Mr Solis about the media's view of the president.

"I can tell the bias that they have on TV. The main media want to dump our president," he says, adding, "the real story is not being told" about US involvement in Iraq.

The media focus only on deaths, not on the positive developments he hears about from his son, he says.

"How many schools did we open? How many bridges did we repair?"

Michael Moore

Opponents of President Bush, on the other hand, praise one of the highest-profile attacks on him this year - the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11. Rowland Huddleston, a supporter of Democratic challenger John Kerry, says "his heart leaps every time I see the truth come out" in places like the film.

But he admits that it merely reinforced what he already thought. "I had these views long before I saw that movie," he says.

Anna Vasquez, on the other hand, is a political independent living in San Antonio, Texas, who says she refuses to see the film because it is "a totally slanted, one-sided view.

"I am not saying that George Bush is not guilty of some of the things that have been said in that movie. But it should not be touted as a documentary. It is one person's perspective of someone that he totally hates," she says. She says she watches mostly CNN, but also Fox and international media in an effort to sift through bias.

Julie Van Ameyde, a Republican small business owner in Detroit, says that she does the same thing - and is frustrated that she feels she has to.

"There's a lot of spin. The media don't give the whole story - but their job is to tell the story and be neutral."

As an external observer, I can say this for certain: American broadcast news are utter crap. And this goes for FOX, CNN, CBS, MSNBC etc

The story is however different for the printed media. For instance the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal are really world-class publications. They are truly several levels above the TV news when it comes to journalism. (There is of course printed crap such as the New York Post or the Washington Times whose editors and 'journalists' probably would have difficulty to pass an literacy exam)

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Making a stupid post has consequences. And I know you are not that dumb that you weren't aware of how nonsensical your comparison was. Such a post is waste of my time and an insult to my intelligence. Hence the insults directed back at you.

Because you do not agree with them does not make them wrong.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bush's lead gets smaller in poll

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — President Bush leads Sen. John Kerry by 8 points among likely voters, the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows, a narrower advantage than Bush held in mid-September and one that puts him at the edge of the survey's margin of error.

Among all registered voters, the president's lead widened a bit to a statistically significant 11 percentage points (Related: Poll results).

So the candidates head toward their first debate Thursday with Bush ahead, but not by an overwhelming margin. Campaign analysts say their three debates could solidify the president's lead — or upend it.

"The debates are the only thing left that John Kerry can utilize to bring this race back to dead-even," says Matthew Dowd, strategist for the Bush campaign.

Kerry pollster Mark Mellman says the survey is evidence that the Massachusetts' senator, who has criticized Bush more sharply for his handling of Iraq and terrorism, is staging a comeback. "Every poll out there shows a dramatic narrowing of this race," Mellman says. He calls the contest essentially tied.

But other findings in the survey show Kerry's standing on some fundamental measures has eroded. Among them:

1. For the first time since he emerged as the Democratic nominee, Kerry doesn't have an advantage when it comes to handling the economy. Those surveyed by 6 points say Bush would do a better job. On handling terrorism, Bush has a 27-point advantage.

2. A 52% majority says Bush has a clear plan for handling Iraq; a 63% majority says Kerry does not. For the first time, the number of voters who say Kerry could handle the responsibilities of commander in chief fell below 50%, to 49%.

3. Likely voters by 54%-44% say Bush's policies would move the country in the right direction. By 49%-44%, they say Kerry's policies would move the country in the wrong direction.

4. By 52%-39%, voters say they expect Bush to do a better job than Kerry in the debates. And 18% say the debates could make a difference in deciding their vote.

Bush was at 52% among likely voters, Kerry at 44% and independent candidate Ralph Nader at 3%. Among registered voters, Bush had 53%, Kerry 42% and Nader 3%. Likely voters are identified based on a series of questions about past voting patterns and intensity of interest in this race. In a Gallup Poll taken Sept. 13-15, Bush held a 14-point lead among likely voters, his biggest edge in any major national survey.

[Akira 0]

It is suppose to be....better late than never...

Well shit. In that case lets go invade Africa. I heard those Zulu's really gave our allies the British hell. Guess that means South Africa too. Hmm...come to think of it, we were late for the ol' Falkland's too. Better go give Argentina a good thrashing. And we totally missed out on the Anglo-Dutch wars. Oh well. No time like that present. Man we totally missed out on the Korean invasion of Japan, and the Mongols invasion of Europe. Shit we better get us some of that action!

Better late than never right?

Stupidest.....billybobism......ever......

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]A 52% majority says Bush has a clear plan for handling Iraq;

That comment alone shows the idiocy of the common voter.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Better late than never right?

Stupidest.....billybobism......ever......

Whatever.... you do not have to be an ass... Also, I want some picture when you leave......

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Better late than never right?

Stupidest.....billybobism......ever......

Whatever.... you do not have to be an ass... Also, I want some picture when you leave......

Sure. If you send me some pics of your trailer park party...