NationStates Jolt Archive

Giving people a thread so they can talk about what they want to talk about and stop stealing other threads about the incompetency of FNC...

Giving people a thread so they can talk about what they want to talk about and stop stealing other threads about the incompetency of FNC...
What is this FNC?

What is this FNC?
Fox news.

bush lied, stole florida, ruined the environment, the economy, foreign relations and helped fuel terrorism.

moore is fat but to his credit gave a lot of people information you wont see in the corporate media

the electoral college is out of date and unfair and lobbying should be banned

Corporations have a right wing agenda and own most of the media thru advertising at the very least if not the media outlets themselves which leaves less diversity of viewpoints int eh media

the NS mods are maily liberally biased in their viewpoints but not in their actions in moderation.

America is a great place but could be improved.

The rest of the world has every right to critisize America because America is so powerful that they affect the entire world with their policies.

Free Trade is not fair trade.

The death penaly is not an answer to problems nor is it a deterrant.

All drugs shoudl be legalized because that would take the money out of the hands of gangs and put it into legitimate businesses and help Americas economy grow.

Women should have equal opportunity to men.

The rich should be taxed more than the poor since they make their money off the hardworking backs of the poor.

Healthcare should be universal.

The best of education should be universal and public schools should be equally funded and not funded according to land value. (meaning people who own high value land [the rich or wealthy] send their kids to public schools that get more money just because their parents make more money.)

Abortion shoudl be a womans choice and not up to local religious groups.

Marriage should be between two consenting adults of any sex and no matter what that means those couples should get equal benefits.

We need to stop vetoing sanctions against Israel for their human rights abuses and stop giving them any money.

Terrorism is a mainly product of foreign policy and not an inherent evil in that person or their faith.

Democrats while left of conservatism are not liberal.

Ummm.....

Fox News kills all other news networks in the ratings.

UN is a bunch of Cowards that run at the first sign of trouble.

Marraige is between One man one woman! No exception

Moore has been debunked more times than the CIA and again by the 911 report!

We were right to go into Iraq.

Fox News kills all other news networks in the ratings.

UN is a bunch of Cowards that run at the first sign of trouble.

Marraige is between One man one woman! No exception

Moore has been debunked more times than the CIA and again by the 911 report!

We were right to go into Iraq.
1) News shouldn't be about ratings.
2) No.
3) Opinion.
4) And?
5) Opinion.

1. Bush should apoligize for misleading his nation. Then he should resign early.

2. Michael Moore is fat because he would rather work his butt off making a documentary than worry about how he looks.

1) News shouldn't be about ratings.
2) No.
3) Opinion.
4) And?
5) Opinion.

1) People love watching Fox News. That is why they are Number 1
2) Don't know why you said no! I've seen them run when a bomb either a)goes off near their HQ or b)their HQ gets bombed! They don't stick around when those 2 things happen.
3)Most of the nation feels that way according to latest polls. The people don't want gay marraige. I was opposed to the FMA but I applaud the house on the bill they passed. I just hope the Senate follows suit.
4)My opinion is my opinion! I've seen the websites and I've did some investigation! He has been debunked massively in his 2 documentaries that I know of! More on F 9/11! Even the 9/11 report shot down one of his premises for that movie! I'll let you think about which one!
5)My opinion again and your right about that it is my opinion. Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein. Yes there are still terror attacks there. The terrorists are going to do everything it takes to undermind the new government. Iraq isn't postponing a conference on an interim parliment as the UN requested. Elections are still on schedule and I don't think they'll be pushed back either!

1) People love watching Fox News. That is why they are Number 1
Since this is the only one I feel really strong about, I'll drop all the others. I understand people love watching Fox. And I understand that because of that they are number one, but if everyone loved the Chicago Bears would the win the Super Bowl? Loving a News network makes it a popularity contest, not an accuracy contest. Loving Fox doesn't increase its chances of being Fair and Balanced any more than loving the Chicago Bears increases their chances of winning the super bowl...

1) News shouldn't be about ratings.


I agree. Fortunately, Fox rarely runs stories about its ratings. Their stories mostly just cover the events of the day.

I agree. Fortunately, Fox rarely runs stories about its ratings. Their stories mostly just cover the events of the day.
But sometimes, they play shows with high ratings instead of real news. Like last night when they played that arrogant, pompous, self-absorbed idiot O'Reilly over Ted Kennedy.

2) Don't know why you said no! I've seen them run when a bomb either a)goes off near their HQ or b)their HQ gets bombed! They don't stick around when those 2 things happen.


ROTFLMAO

Because most people like to be bombed right?

ROTFLMAO

Because most people like to be bombed right?
I know I do.

2) Don't know why you said no! I've seen them run when a bomb either a)goes off near their HQ or b)their HQ gets bombed! They don't stick around when those 2 things happen.

"There is a bomb here that is gonna blow soon!!"

"Hum, I better stay here then. I am no coward!"

...

Since this is the only one I feel really strong about, I'll drop all the others. I understand people love watching Fox. And I understand that because of that they are number one, but if everyone loved the Chicago Bears would the win the Super Bowl? Loving a News network makes it a popularity contest, not an accuracy contest. Loving Fox doesn't increase its chances of being Fair and Balanced any more than loving the Chicago Bears increases their chances of winning the super bowl...

According to an AOL Poll, they reported that 52% of the people consider Fox News Fair and Balanced. This is the only poll I have seen regarding this! I'll have to find the link for it but that is what was reported!

According to an AOL Poll, they reported that 52% of the people consider Fox News Fair and Balanced. This is the only poll I have seen regarding this! I'll have to find the link for it but that is what was reported!
...AOL poll? You know who AOL pollsters poll? AOL users. I don't consider AOL users the brightest portion of this nation, and I'd hope you don't either.

52%. Hmm. Sounds an awful lot like HALF the country.

52%. Hmm. Sounds an awful lot like HALF the country.

You ever go to school? Because when I got a 50, they never gave me a pat on the back and a "good job!"

No, they let me know that I had FAILED :p



Besides, this is an AOL poll. That speaks volumns right there.

You ever go to school? Because when I got a 50, they never gave me a pat on the back and a "good job!"

No, they let me know that I had FAILED :p



Besides, this is an AOL poll. That speaks volumns right there.

Oh thats funny but 52% of those polled is the majority of the people polled. As for AOL Users not being the brightest, I want to see your proof regarding that!

Oh thats funny but 52% of those polled is the majority of the people polled. As for AOL Users not being the brightest, I want to see your proof regarding that!
eh...AOL cost $25/mo...
There is an Internet Service called Wal-Mart connect which is the exact same thing as AOL. In fact, even the "Wal-Mart Messenger" connects to AIM servers and you can chat with people on AIM and AOL Messenger...the difference? $10/mo. That's reason enough to call them dumb.

And also, like someone else mentioned.. 52% isn't really an overwhelming majority...

eh...AOL cost $25/mo...
There is an Internet Service called Wal-Mart connect which is the exact same thing as AOL. In fact, even the "Wal-Mart Messenger" connects to AIM servers and you can chat with people on AIM and AOL Messenger...the difference? $10/mo. That's reason enough to call them dumb.

And also, like someone else mentioned.. 52% isn't really an overwhelming majority...

True not an overwhelming majority but still a majority!

True not an overwhelming majority but still a majority!
So, a slight majority of dumb people consider Fox fair and balanced...and? A slight majority of people (not all dumb) also would have preferred Al Gore to George Bush...

2) Don't know why you said no! I've seen them run when a bomb either a)goes off near their HQ or b)their HQ gets bombed! They don't stick around when those 2 things happen.


Ah yes. This is in direct contravention of the US army training manual that states that if a mortar shell is lobbed at you, you remain in the open, try to catch it, and then throw it back.....


In other news - body armour is for pussies. So are helmets. People who can't take a bullet shouldn't be in combat.


In still other news, the singularly American hobby of building backyard bomb shelters in the 50's was really just an astute forsight into a future trend that extensive wine cellars would be a big selling point....

Ah yes. This is in direct contravention of the US army training manual that states that if a mortar shell is lobbed at you, you remain in the open, try to catch it, and then throw it back.....


In other news - body armour is for pussies. So are helmets. People who can't take a bullet shouldn't be in combat.


In still other news, the singularly American hobby of building backyard bomb shelters in the 50's was really just an astute forsight into a future trend that extensive wine cellars would be a big selling point....
Left = funny.

Lets look at the guillibility of most liberals.

First subject will be Clinton.

Clinton was lying to people even before he was elected. Saying things like, "I didn't inhale". Then he lied in court multiple times. (Whitewater, Paula Jones, ect)

Yet, you trust him. Don't you ever wonder that if he lied to everyone about those small things, what else did he lie about?

Second subject, Moore.

Moore has been proven to have lied in the movie so many times it's increadible. He would leave out enough footage so that contents would be taken out of context, he also left out all the information that actually explains all his crazy theories...for instance, when Bin Ladin's relatives left the US, they flew out on the 13th...according to Moore, all the planes were grounded...but the truth is, that on the 13th all the airports where open again except for two, Logan and Dulles.

Also, when showing prewar Iraq, he showed children flying kites, he didn't show the death chambers, or the footage of the 10,000 Kurds that were killed by VX nerve gas.

Yet, even though it has been proven by so many people in so many different ways that Moore is a liar...liberals discount that. It's like they can't fathom someone with the same political beliefs actually being a liar.


On the other hand, Bush is somehow a liar even though he has never ever lied to us.

For instance, one of the liberal's favorite sayings is that Bush lied to us about WMDs in order for us to invade Iraq. Fact is, every single government on Earth thought he had WMDs. The information about that is all over the internet from reputable sources like the BBC and CNN. When the liberals counter this, they put up a link to IhateBush.com, run by some idiot alone in him home with no credibility at all...so because this guy has a position they agree with, they'll ignore the BBC and believe JimBob the Liberal instead.

Another favorite of theirs is that Bush lied about Iraq having contacts with AQ. Which even the 9/11 report said they did. No, Iraq and AQ didn't work together or plan anything together, but if they have contacts with eachother, how long will it take for them to start working together?

Add that to the fact that we believed Iraq had WMDs and you can see why we went in there.

So why is it, (and I'd like some sane liberals to answer this one) that when someone is liberal, he isn't lying but if they person is conservative, then he is automatically a liar to most of you?

Ah yes. This is in direct contravention of the US army training manual that states that if a mortar shell is lobbed at you, you remain in the open, try to catch it, and then throw it back.....


In other news - body armour is for pussies. So are helmets. People who can't take a bullet shouldn't be in combat.


In still other news, the singularly American hobby of building backyard bomb shelters in the 50's was really just an astute forsight into a future trend that extensive wine cellars would be a big selling point....

Lets see! Army training manuel dictates that you dive for cover, call in support and eliminate the enemy. The Army is only forced to retreat when outgunned and out numbered. Body armor (something that John Kerry voted against) protects our soldiers as does helmets.

Neusia, I agree with you totally!

So, a slight majority of dumb people consider Fox fair and balanced...and? A slight majority of people (not all dumb) also would have preferred Al Gore to George Bush...


Right, because they disagree with you, they are dumb. You seem to be pretty closed minded.

Lets see! Army training manuel dictates that you dive for cover, call in support and eliminate the enemy. The Army is only forced to retreat when outgunned and out numbered.

I see.

And what does the US Civilian training manual say? After all - that IS what the UN staff is comprised of.

Let's see, as I recall the briefings on what the general public should do in the case of another terrorist attack, it went something like: Stay home. hide. Don't drink the water. Be afraid. And make use of duct tape.


I see - there's your problem....you just didn't watch long enough. The UN staffers were all just running home to get their duct tape as per instructions.


:rolleyes:

You really take the cake. It's OK for US military with the capability of returning fire to run for cover, but not for civilians with no means of protecting themselves. They, I presume, are supposed to hang around, look up, and watch the pretty shells coming in..... I suppose that all of those New Yorkers fleeing the falling towers were cowards in your books too?

Didn't think so.

Right, because they disagree with you, they are dumb. You seem to be pretty closed minded.
No, they're dumb because they use AOL. I think AOL users who agree with me are dumb too...

I have to say, those of us who were on the net when some of you were in diapers or at least very young children.. AOL has always been a running joke for as long as they've been around. The reason being is it doesn't take a whole bunch of knowledge to use AOL.. in fact it takes none.

So, how AOL started off as a joke was by the many of us who actually had to know how to configure a network in order to get on the net. As opposed to those who used AOL.. at least that was what first got them branded. It just sort of stuck with them ever since as well as with the people who use their service.

I have to say, those of us who were on the net when some of you were in diapers or at least very young children.. AOL has always been a running joke for as long as they've been around. The reason being is it doesn't take a whole bunch of knowledge to use AOL.. in fact it takes none.

So, how AOL started off as a joke was by the many of us who actually had to know how to configure a network in order to get on the net. As opposed to those who used AOL.. at least that was what first got them branded. It just sort of stuck with them ever since as well as with the people who use their service.
I wonder and hope you're not criticizing my comments...I've been using the internet since around '96 or '97...which is a good chunk of time...

I see.

And what does the US Civilian training manual say? After all - that IS what the UN staff is comprised of.

Let's see, as I recall the briefings on what the general public should do in the case of another terrorist attack, it went something like: Stay home. hide. Don't drink the water. Be afraid. And make use of duct tape.


I see - there's your problem....you just didn't watch long enough. The UN staffers were all just running home to get their duct tape as per instructions.


:rolleyes:

You really take the cake. It's OK for US military with the capability of returning fire to run for cover, but not for civilians with no means of protecting themselves. They, I presume, are supposed to hang around, look up, and watch the pretty shells coming in..... I suppose that all of those New Yorkers fleeing the falling towers were cowards in your books too?

Didn't think so.

Sir, you can think all you want! I would flee too if a building is coming down on me but there is a distinct difference between these 2 incidents.

UN is a force that is suppose to help people. They were helping the Iraqi civilians with food. When the UN got bombed, they packed up and left leaving the US and our allies to feed for them. Demonsrations against the UN took place in Iraq. Now the UN is back in. What happens if they get attacked again? Will they stay or run? My guess is that they'll run!

Now 9-11! A 110 story building gets hit by one 757! Its twin gets hit by another 757. The civilians fled yes. How many didn't? How many stayed to helped others escaped? How many stayed to help treat the injured? How many people in the towers could've escaped but didn't so they can help others escaped? How many firefighters died, trying to rescue people? How many police died to do the same? Yes the latter 2 where just doing their jobs! But they attributed the low death toll, if you count 3000 a low one and I actually do considering what it could've been, to the Civilians that stayed behind to help the people escape with their lives! I saw the events unfold on 9/11! Yes it was a catastrophy. It was also America's finest hour! An hour where Americans set aside their differences to help one another. When the towers came down, there was also one bright spot! That bright spot being that "our flag was still there" When that flag was spotted, the firefighters, police, paramedics, as well as civilians rallied behind that sight to try to find survivors. Many people were overcomed with joy and burst into tears when they saw that flag. There was no reason that flag should still be flying unfurled. It was a symbol that our nation is strong and that our nation won't fall. The civilians that helped didn't flee. They stayed to help. Many tried to help firefighters get to victims before the towers fell. Others helped in first aide. Yes civilians fled but the true heros are those civilians that didn't flee and didn't make it out alive. Those are the true heros of September 11, 2001!

I wonder and hope you're not criticizing my comments...I've been using the internet since around '96 or '97...which is a good chunk of time...

Ah, but were you using AOL? lol

Ah, but were you using AOL? lol
Negative. My mom got free internet access from the University of Arkansas. Now we're on Cox Cable. (Which...as far as service...is probably worse than AOL...)

UN is a force

I didn't read past that, why? Because it's incorrect. The UN is not a "force" never has been, was never intended to be.

I find what has become amazingly obvious is how many people haven't a clue what the role of the UN is. I guess they don't get taught it in school or maybe just skipped that day.. I don't know what it is, but it's a little surprising some times just how unaware some people are of the UN mandate.

I didn't read past that, why? Because it's incorrect. The UN is not a "force" never has been, was never intended to be.

I find what has become amazingly obvious is how many people haven't a clue what the role of the UN is. I guess they don't get taught it in school or maybe just skipped that day.. I don't know what it is, but it's a little surprising some times just how unaware some people are of the UN mandate.

Ok, I ment it in a generic sense! If it makes you feel better I probably should've said that the UN is an organization that is supposed to help people! I'll go back and edit it! However, what is an organization that is supposed to help people that runs after every bombing attack on its people? I though the UN was supposed to be "Strong"! So far all I've seen them do is run when its HQ gets bombed.

I didn't read past that, why? Because it's incorrect. The UN is not a "force" never has been, was never intended to be.

I find what has become amazingly obvious is how many people haven't a clue what the role of the UN is. I guess they don't get taught it in school or maybe just skipped that day.. I don't know what it is, but it's a little surprising some times just how unaware some people are of the UN mandate.
In all my classes in high school, none of them covered the United Nations. The only reason I know about it is from interest in international relations and from partaking in Model United Nations.

Ok, I ment it in a generic sense! If it makes you feel better I probably should've said that the UN is an organization that is supposed to help people! I'll go back and edit it! However, what is an organization that is supposed to help people that runs after every bombing attack on its people? I though the UN was supposed to be "Strong"! So far all I've seen them do is run when its HQ gets bombed.

I think you have the UN mixed up with the International Red Cross.

The UN does run food programs and goes in to help when security is acceptable. However, this is done in conjunction with other countries.. what you refer to is more the role of the IRC.

I don't think this thread has much of a specific topic. Heh, pretty much anything in world news is on topic in this thread!!

I think you have the UN mixed up with the International Red Cross.

The UN does run food programs and goes in to help when security is acceptable. However, this is done in conjunction with other countries.. what you refer to is more the role of the IRC.


mIRC? I hardly ever use that.

Steph, I actually read the UN Charter! I follow what the UN does regularly. What it does, doesn't impress me. No wonder that the UN isn't exactly popular here in America.

As for not knowing what the UN does, I have a basic knowledge of what it does. Frankly I don't care for the UN since it has failed in Bosnia and in Iraq! UN stood on the sidelines as the Muslims, ironically enough, where rounded up. It took NATO to stop that! UN did crap! NATO backed up the US on Iraq and before you say that Canada didn't, read up on NATO! Canada is on the Defense Council. The US bypassed France on the NATO Assembly and went to the Defense Council of NATO and got the approval for Iraq, unanomously. I guess they didn't broadcast that in Canada.

Where was the UN in Bosnia? Nowhere to be found! Incidently, China stonewalled the UN and a misguided bomb nearly fell on the Chinese embassy just like when we bombed Libya and France didn't allow us to fly through their airspace, a bomb fell near the French Embassy. Accidents both of them but its a nice little coincidence.

I don't here you complain about the faults of the UN! You only focus on the positives. UN Failed in Korea! Failed in Bosnia! Failed in Iraq! How do you account for the failures of the UN! Not all of them where caused by the USA! Where was the UN on Afghanistan in 1980? Oh that's right, Soviet Union had a Veto. When they weren't their a resolution was passed Condemning the invasion but nothing was done to combat it with real forces! That caused us to train many of the current al Qaeda leaders because they where fighting the Soviet Union, though at the time the said people where our allies. al Qaeda didn't become our enemy until AFTER the Gulf war when we had troops inside Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi Government!

Before your quick to attack the USA on stalling the UN, remember that CHina blocked Bosnia! France blocked the 2nd Iraq war! The Soviet Union blocked Afghanistan. Yes we have used our Veto on Israeli resolutions but look at those resolutions! Yes they condemn what Israel did but what about the what the Palestinians where doing? I do support Israel but I do think that some of the Resolutions against them are justified.

The UN has dragged their feet when they are called upon to serve their mandate. It has happened time and time again. Look at all the Veto resolutions and not just the ones that the US Vetoed but those done by China, the Former Soviet Union, the French, and I think Britian even Vetoed a couple, I'll have to check!

Steph, I actually read the UN Charter! I follow what the UN does regularly. What it does, doesn't impress me. No wonder that the UN isn't exactly popular here in America.

Then if you've read the charter you know it's the role of the UN to prevent war through diplomacy and to prevent war and promote peace, this is done by cooperation from it's member states. The UN is only as useful as it's member states allow it to be.

A little trivia you might find interesting, the USA has used it VETO power more then all of the other 4 permanent members combined. The UN was never intended to help make cases for war, quite the opposite.

It's my understanding that NATO only agreed to train troops for Iraq.. they only invoked article 5 for Afghanistan.

Then if you've read the charter you know it's the role of the UN to prevent war through diplomacy and to prevent war and promote peace, this is done by cooperation from it's member states. The UN is only as useful as it's member states allow it to be.

A little trivia you might find interesting, the USA has used it VETO power more then all of the other 4 permanent members combined. The UN was never intended to help make cases for war, quite the opposite.

It's my understanding that NATO only agreed to train troops for Iraq.. they only invoked article 5 for Afghanistan.

Yea and most of them on resolutions concerning Israel!

I never stated that they invoked Article 5! Article 5 only states that an attack on one is an attack on all! NATO doesn't have to invoke Article 5 to approve something! The Defense Council approved Iraq! It has been reported but not as widely reported. They didn't invoke article 5 on Iraq your right about that but the Defense council did authorize the Iraq War under Aricle 3! Yea you may say that Iraq didn't pose a threat to the US all well and good now but at the time when the Intel gathered by ALL MEMBER NATIONS stated that he had WMD, now proved exaggerated, what do you think the world is going to do? Wait and See? No they'll act. NATO acted. The UN didn't!

You are right, UN is to promote peace but under the Security Council Guidelines, to follow through when violations take place. Iraq violated 17 UN Resolutions and the UNSC didn't do a damn thing except get in the way of following through on what the mandate of the UN Security Council Mandate. That is why I don't support the UN!

Yea and most of them on resolutions concerning Israel!

I never stated that they invoked Article 5! Article 5 only states that an attack on one is an attack on all! NATO doesn't have to invoke Article 5 to approve something! The Defense Council approved Iraq! It has been reported but not as widely reported. They didn't invoke article 5 on Iraq your right about that but the Defense council did authorize the Iraq War under Aricle 3! Yea you may say that Iraq didn't pose a threat to the US all well and good now but at the time when the Intel gathered by ALL MEMBER NATIONS stated that he had WMD, now proved exaggerated, what do you think the world is going to do? Wait and See? No they'll act. NATO acted. The UN didn't!

How does WMD make Iraq a threat to the US? They don't harbor terrorists...

Sure they might use gas on the Kurds, but that DOES NOT make them a threat to the US.

The Brits have WMDs...

How does WMD make Iraq a threat to the US? They don't harbor terrorists...

Sure they might use gas on the Kurds, but that DOES NOT make them a threat to the US.

They don't harbor terrorists? Granted, no hijacker passed through Iraq I will grant you that! However, the Senate Intel Report, the Butler Report, and now the 9/11 report all stated that Hussein had a relationship with terrorists. Iraq offered sanctuary to any al Qaeda person as stated in the the 9/11 report. From all i've seen, they have supported terror groups and have relationships with the same terrorists including Al Qaeda. Not a threat to the US? Supporting Terror sure sounds like a threat to me! WMD wasn't the only charge we went in on as most people keep forgetting! We went in also on the Terrorism Charge! Also another reason I supported the Iraq war is all the Mass Graves that we have found, the torture and rape rooms of Hussein and his sons as well as his own aides. That is why I supported the Iraq War.

Didn't support terror? Read up on your facts again. Harbor Terrorists, several terrorists went through Iraq either to train there or to be treated there. Nope no threat there. Sorry but I believe in what the Senate Intel says on this issue as well as the 9/11 report!

You are right, UN is to promote peace but under the Security Council Guidelines, to follow through when violations take place. Iraq violated 17 UN Resolutions and the UNSC didn't do a damn thing except get in the way of following through on what the mandate of the UN Security Council Mandate. That is why I don't support the UN!

What did you expect the UN to do? The UN as stated is not a force.. it can only do and go by what it's member states allow. You are not grasping the UN role. I'm sorry, but you're not.

2) Don't know why you said no! I've seen them run when a bomb either a)goes off near their HQ or b)their HQ gets bombed! They don't stick around when those 2 things happen.

I almost spit out my pop when I read this. Is this guy for real?

Yea and most of them on resolutions concerning Israel!

I never stated that they invoked Article 5! Article 5 only states that an attack on one is an attack on all! NATO doesn't have to invoke Article 5 to approve something! The Defense Council approved Iraq! It has been reported but not as widely reported. They didn't invoke article 5 on Iraq your right about that but the Defense council did authorize the Iraq War under Aricle 3! Yea you may say that Iraq didn't pose a threat to the US all well and good now but at the time when the Intel gathered by ALL MEMBER NATIONS stated that he had WMD, now proved exaggerated, what do you think the world is going to do? Wait and See? No they'll act. NATO acted. The UN didn't!


I suppose this "support for the war" you are talking about was this Nato resolution?

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2002/p02-133e.htm

NATO Allies stand united in their commitment to take effective action to assist and support the efforts of the UN to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq, without conditions or restrictions, with UNSCR 1441. We recall that the Security Council in this resolution has warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violation of its obligations.


The text nowhere authorizes war, and indeed is explicit that it was intended to support the UN efforts. When GW forced the war in a hurry and required the UN process to end before inspections were completed he went beyond the scope of this resolution which is why other Nato members were not compelled to join up.



You are right, UN is to promote peace but under the Security Council Guidelines, to follow through when violations take place. Iraq violated 17 UN Resolutions and the UNSC didn't do a damn thing except get in the way of following through on what the mandate of the UN Security Council Mandate. That is why I don't support the UN!

Get in the way?

How exactly did they do that?

Be specific.

2) Don't know why you said no! I've seen them run when a bomb either a)goes off near their HQ or b)their HQ gets bombed! They don't stick around when those 2 things happen.

I almost spit out my pop when I read this. Is this guy for real?

Saddly - yes.

They don't harbor terrorists? Granted, no hijacker passed through Iraq I will grant you that! However, the Senate Intel Report, the Butler Report, and now the 9/11 report all stated that Hussein had a relationship with terrorists.

A relationship with Hamas. Not an international threat. Or is it true what the Mulsims think that the US exists only to defend Isreal?


Iraq offered sanctuary to any al Qaeda person as stated in the the 9/11 report.

ANY al qaeda person? You of course have a link to support this?

From all i've seen, they have supported terror groups and have relationships with the same terrorists including Al Qaeda.

Well, that makes one of you...

Not a threat to the US? Supporting Terror sure sounds like a threat to me! WMD wasn't the only charge we went in on as most people keep forgetting! We went in also on the Terrorism Charge! Also another reason I supported the Iraq war is all the Mass Graves that we have found, the torture and rape rooms of Hussein and his sons as well as his own aides. That is why I supported the Iraq War.


You mean the mass graves that haven't appeared?

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0%2C12956%2C1263901%2C00.html

Didn't support terror? Read up on your facts again. Harbor Terrorists, several terrorists went through Iraq either to train there or to be treated there. Nope no threat there. Sorry but I believe in what the Senate Intel says on this issue as well as the 9/11 report!

As opposed to the 9-11 terrorists that went through the US, trained there, and even operated there? Shall we also count then the US training of terrorists throughout the Middle East and Central America and hold you up to the same standards and require you to disarm? I mean, really, nobody has trained more terrorists than the CIA.

And sometimes you didn't even bother using proxies. You DO remember the CIA setting off that car bomb on the streets of Beruit in '85 don''t you? The one intended to kill a radical cleric that wound up missing him and taking out about 80 innocent people instead?

Holding other countries up to standards that you refuse to hold yourself to is hypocritical in the extreme.

Um, I just want to point out that VERY, VERY little on the UN is taught through high school. Education on government is severely lacking.


And to think, they grow up to vote without knowing anything...

Its been stated in the 9/11 REPORT that AL QAEDA and HUSSEIN had a relationship or did you NOT here that on the NEWS? They didn't cooperate on 9/11 but they did have a relationship according to the the 9/11 Commission report!

They offered Sanctuary to al Qaeda personel, Stated in the 9/11 report!

As for the Mass Graves, they were FOUND! Just not in the numbers stated but they were found! You can't ignore the fact that several were found in IRAQ!

Alot of the people we trained were FIGHTING COMMUNISM!!!!! I guess that fact is lost on Canadians!

I KNOW!!! HOW could they be so IRRESPONSIBLE!!! AFTER all, we all KNOW that COMMUNISM is our GREATEST ENEMY!!! How could anything we did during the COLD WAR have a NEGATIVE OUTCOME?!?!?!

Hey, If We SHOUT Everything It Adds More WEIGHT To Our ARGUMENTS. I AGREE With FORMAL DANCES. CIVILIANS Being KILLED Doesen't Matter If It's A War Against COMMUNISM. SADDAM Used To Be Our FRIEND But He's Not Any MORE. Is THAT So Hard For You LIBERAL SUBVERSIVES To Understand? Next you'll be SAYING that KURDS living in TURKEY matter as much as the ones in IRAQ.

Hey, If We Shout Everything It Adds More Weight To Our Arguments. I Agree With Formal Dances. Civilians Being Killed Doesen't Matter If It's A War Against Communism. Saddam Used To Be Our Friend But He's Not Any More. Is That So Hard For You Liberal Subversives To Understand?

Faints as The Holy Word agrees with her!

Faints as The Holy Word agrees with her!




.....


ROFLMAO!!!!!

According to an AOL Poll, they reported that 52% of the people consider Fox News Fair and Balanced. This is the only poll I have seen regarding this! I'll have to find the link for it but that is what was reported!
52% of who

Its been stated in the 9/11 REPORT that AL QAEDA and HUSSEIN had a relationship or did you NOT here that on the NEWS? They didn't cooperate on 9/11 but they did have a relationship according to the the 9/11 Commission report!

They offered Sanctuary to al Qaeda personel, Stated in the 9/11 report!

As for the Mass Graves, they were FOUND! Just not in the numbers stated but they were found! You can't ignore the fact that several were found in IRAQ!

Alot of the people we trained were FIGHTING COMMUNISM!!!!! I guess that fact is lost on Canadians!

WOW. Please check your caps-lock key. It seems to be sticking....

For the record - I have the 911 Commision report sitting right here on my desk. It states that there was no evidence to support claims of a working relationship between Saddam and al qaeda. It was, as you might recal, the reason Bush jumped back onto the airwaves to insist that the 911 Commission was wrong.


To refresh your memory of the news: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155228/posts

If what Saddam had was a "relationship" to Osama then the US was married to the guy! Feel free to invade yourselves at your own leisure.

And yes - several mass graves were found. But nowhere near the numbers that were claimed - indicating that even the brutality argument is lessened. Not that I can possibly defend the man for his transgressions. But if it turns out after all this that he only killed 50,000 over his 30 years in power, and you have killed over 10,000 in your first year - congratulations - you won the "killing Iraqi's" award.


As to "fighting communism", that was the same excuse the Administration of the day used in the 80s that directed the rebels in Nicaraqua to start going after "soft targets", i.e. civilians.


The fact is not "lost" on Canadians. However that didn't give a right to use whatever illegal and dirty stunts you could dream up then either.

Sometimes, the ends just don't justify the means.....

Um, I just want to point out that VERY, VERY little on the UN is taught through high school. Education on government is severely lacking.


And to think, they grow up to vote without knowing anything...

FAir enough. To be honest issues related to the UN isn't taught all that much in Canada either. However some people actually try to take the time to research a subject before jumping to conclusions. Especially when other people keep bringing up a stated argument as an incorrect assumption.


Some people, however, prefer dogma and ignorance. It takes less work I guess.

Faints as The Holy Word agrees with her!

ROTFLMAO!!!

Sarcasm is truly lost on some people.. lmao.

Zep then if you believe that then you probably didn't support the civilian bombings during WWII! The Firebombings of Tokyo, the carpet bombings of Berlin. However, I can see why we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However did the ends justify the means there too? No matter what Zep, you can find fault in almost anything that people do. Not our fault that we've fought communism through proxy. As far as I can see, only Nicaraqua and Afghanistan took place under Reagan. Hussein came to power under a Democratic Leader, A republican got us out of Nam whereas a democrat got us into nam. I'm not going to turn this debate into a republican/Democrat debate. There's enough of that already on here. Though I may lean right, it may surprise you Zep, that I actually listen to both sides! I listen to the equally. If I could I would vote for Obama in Illinois. He is very level headed and well grounded. He's a democrat. Yea you heard me, I actually like him!

I too have the 9/11 report on my desk, however, I know what is said on all the major news channels. They've all reported that Al Qaeda and Saddam had a relationship and that Saddam offered sanctuary to al Qaeda personel. That is even in the 9/11 report! I never said they had a working relationship. All I said here was that they had a relationship. That is all I said. Your the one that said that I said that they had a working one where I did not say that. Though I haven't gotten past the first chapter in it yet, so far it is very comprehensive. You can't spin this report one way or the other Zep. It was totally Bipartisan and without dissent. If this report stated that they had a relationship, then I believe that saddam and al Qaeda had a relationship. I'm just going by what I've heard on TV and read in the papers. A working relationship is still questionable but the fact that they came out and said that they had a relationship is still pretty profound.

Zep then if you believe that then you probably didn't support the civilian bombings during WWII! The Firebombings of Tokyo, the carpet bombings of Berlin. However, I can see why we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However did the ends justify the means there too? No matter what Zep, you can find fault in almost anything that people do. Not our fault that we've fought communism through proxy. As far as I can see, only Nicaraqua and Afghanistan took place under Reagan. Hussein came to power under a Democratic Leader, A republican got us out of Nam whereas a democrat got us into nam. I'm not going to turn this debate into a republican/Democrat debate. There's enough of that already on here. Though I may lean right, it may surprise you Zep, that I actually listen to both sides! I listen to the equally. If I could I would vote for Obama in Illinois. He is very level headed and well grounded. He's a democrat. Yea you heard me, I actually like him!

I too have the 9/11 report on my desk, however, I know what is said on all the major news channels. They've all reported that Al Qaeda and Saddam had a relationship and that Saddam offered sanctuary to al Qaeda personel. That is even in the 9/11 report! I never said they had a working relationship. All I said here was that they had a relationship. That is all I said. Your the one that said that I said that they had a working one where I did not say that. Though I haven't gotten past the first chapter in it yet, so far it is very comprehensive. You can't spin this report one way or the other Zep. It was totally Bipartisan and without dissent. If this report stated that they had a relationship, then I believe that saddam and al Qaeda had a relationship. I'm just going by what I've heard on TV and read in the papers. A working relationship is still questionable but the fact that they came out and said that they had a relationship is still pretty profound.

I think you're missing the point , the point is, if Saddam had a "relationship" with bin Laden then the Americans were married to him.. same goes for Saddam.. the Americans and Saddam had operational ties and it wasn't about commies my dear, oh and if you want to say it was because they wanted to stop Iran, then explain to us all, as we'd love to hear it, why they were selling drugs on the streets of America to fund the rebels in Iran as well.. can't have it both ways..