NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe it's the latter.

Please share your thoughts. But do it without flaming and without being sarcastic or a smart-ass.

There is not now nor has there ever been a real link between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, or Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the government has even admitted it!

But then why did we go to war with Iraq?


Because the zionist pawns (masons) rule our government and demanded the war for Israeli security and Israeli oil interests.



I also don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. I've looked at detailed pictures of the damage... There is no evidence of any wings clipping into the building, rather just something that looks like a truck bomb damage, a massive truck bomb.

I also believe the plane that was "crashed" by the passengers, was actually shot out of the sky by the air force.

I also believe that Israel knew about 9/11 well in advance, and that on the day in question, there were very few jews in the WTC when it was attacked. I think most if not all of the jews were out of the building at the time.

I don't subscribe to these conspiracy theories. I think that 9/11, while it might have been preventable, was not planned or known about in advance. Rather as one can prevent a heart attack by eating healthily and keeping a watch on cholesterol, but doesn't know it's going to happen. Similarly, I think the "War on Terror" is being overblown and is really not the right thing to be doing, but I think it is genuine because the officials in charge of it really believe it's the way to solve these problems. Rather the way that, after a heart attack, a patient might insist he must take it easy, and in so doing completely abstain from exercise and thus make the problem worse, though he would think he was doing the right thing.

I think it's sincere but very very dumb in planning, objectives and operations. Still, when you elect a moron, expect moronic behaviour.

Well said, CM. I think it's phony for the following reasons:

1)If our number-one priority is fighting terror, why are we wasting so much time and money fighting against a tin-pot tyrant like Saddam Hussein, who, although vehemently anti-American and friendly toward terrorists, was in no way affiliated with the 9/11 atrocity, and posed virtually no threat to our security?

2)Why did Bush renew diplomatic ties with the Quaddafi regime in Libya?

3)Why not go after real terrorists, ones who actually do possess WMDs, such as Syria or the DPRK?

4)Why seek help from the UN, which is itself loaded with terrorists and their apologists?

5)Why seek help from terrorist supporters like Russia and China?

6)Why fight in the Middle East, almost halfway around the world, where the odds are not in our favor, and fight in Cuba, instead? Not only is it 90 miles offshore. Not only would the odds be heavily in our favor. Moreover, Castro is one of the world's largest narcotics traffickers, a big supporter of terrorism, and an ardent foe of America who still longs for our destruction.

7)Why distribute our troops so thinly across the globe, rather than keep them home, where they're needed most?

8)Why leave our borders wide open and easily accessible to potential terrorists?

9)Why shun our longtime allies, and, deliberately or not, do almost everything conceivable to piss them off?

If it was real, Iraq would not have been invaded, and Osama would be rotting in jail now.

If it was real, Iraq would not have been invaded, and Osama would be rotting in jail now.

Agreed.

It's fake.

2)Why did Bush renew diplomatic ties with the Quaddafi regime in Libya?
Because he became friendly. Plus he said (reportedly) something smart :
I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/04/wun04.xml

despite all the dumb things the Bush administration has done i still think in their minds they are doing the right thing. They are just wrong.

I like to call it the war on freedom.

Well considering the fact that terrorist threaten the free nations of the world I'm gonna have to say that it's real. You can't neggotiate with them. They only responed to force. Wheather or not you like it we are in the middle of world war three. These people are crazy and won't stop until there all dead. Just like the Nazis or finatical Japanese forces of WW2. The problem is they don't have a distinct country like Germany or Japan.

And in response to Osama in jail quote. Its nearly impossible to find one man in the terain of Afganistan. Especially when he can go and hide in deplomatically free Pakistan, where the U.S cannot go after him and the local authorities are uncoaperative.

I don't subscribe to these conspiracy theories.


I subscribe to a large number of the "Conspiracy theories" out there. I guess certain people believe certain things. I believe in Area-51 but not the Aliens crap, they're obviously highly secret experimental fighter craft. I bet we've had stealth bombers since the 50s-60s, at least early version of them. That is what people where seeing.

I like to call it the war on freedom.

Which is why were invading repressive regimes?

I subscribe to a large number of the "Conspiracy theories" out there. I guess certain people believe certain things. I believe in Area-51 but not the Aliens crap, they're obviously highly secret experimental fighter craft. I bet we've had stealth bombers since the 50s-60s, at least early version of them. That is what people where seeing.

Area-51 has been declassified and tons of stuff has been coming out about the base. It had nothing to do with aliens, but tons to do with SR-71 Blackbirds, F-117As, and B-2As. It was a secret base because we didn't want Russia knowing what we were doing. The Stealth fighter actually didn't exist until the mid-70's, but it didn't make it's 1st flight until 1978 (according to History Channel interviews with the 1st pilot of the black jet).

They even declassiffied Roswell stuff and it was a cover-up, to hide military technology being tested, including a test RV (re-entry vehicle that was mistaken for a flying saucer)

Hmm, yeah, 9/11 wasn't the work of terrorists, it was just a plot by our government to bring us in line by scare tactics. Right.

I don't agree with the way we went about fighting it but come on - terror's real enough.

The War on Terror is more an oxymoron if you ask me. By agressively attacking countries known to support/harbour terrorists (or at least said to, despite a complete black hole of real evidence), they are simply making the problem worse.

I remain very sceptical of the Iraq invasion. They did it for unfounded reasons, and would have stood a much better chance with the UN if they'd dropped the stupid WMD thing and concentrated on just how cruel this guy is...and not abused every country that objected to the US. The fact that North Korea was ignored in favour of Iraq (despite actually SAYING they where actively pursuing the development of nukes...and clearly had the resources to do it), makes me extremely sceptical of the Bush Administrations motives for 'liberating' Iraq.

I you ask me, the Bush administration is either profoundly stupid, or they have some other agenda. Either way, I'm hoping like hell the people of the US actually realise this and vote them out (assuming Bush doesn't cheat again).

They even declassiffied Roswell stuff and it was a cover-up, to hide military technology being tested, including a test RV (re-entry vehicle that was mistaken for a flying saucer)
Hey now, don't be dissing on our main tourist industry down here.

(assuming Bush doesn't cheat again).
In order to cheat again someone has to cheat in the first place.

Agreed

Hmm, yeah, 9/11 wasn't the work of terrorists, it was just a plot by our government to bring us in line by scare tactics. .


I agree with that part.

Several points to correct; not trying to flame anyone, just only trying to point out several facts. If we are indeed trying to "liberate peoples" why aren't we trying to "liberate people" in Africa from repressive regimes? It should also be noted that the United Nations isn't loaded with terrorists, a common misconception propagated by some American news groups *cough*FOX*cough*. If it's loaded with terrorists, why is there a Counter-Terrorism Committee of the Security Council and why was a major Security Council anti-terrorism resolution (Resolution 1373 (2001)) passed after September 11? The General Assembly is trying to hammer out its own anti-terrorism resolution. The United Nations ISN'T a terrorist puppet, it's a world organization that actually isn't a puppet of the United States.

*cough*FOX*cough*.
Interesting, have any basis for this or is it just baseless fox bashing as usual.

the war in afghanistan was part of the war on terrorism. it broke up alot of alqaida. i dont know WHAT the war in iraq is all about, i guess it was just easy to manipulate the american public so they decided to do it NOW instead of waiting until there was a good reason.

the war on terror can never be won on the battlefield, it takes patience, finesse, good relations wtih the rest of the world, a good hand at diplomacy.
too bad our govt is short on that for now.

*smack* cm. dont you remember that people DIED at the pentagon, dont you remember that there were many many rescue crews there? thats the kind of secret you cant keep. roswell was easy, middle of nowhere, quickly picked up, all secret no problem. middle of the most populous part of the country, first thing in the work day, tons of people everywhere, cant keep that secret.

Several points to correct; not trying to flame anyone, just only trying to point out several facts. If we are indeed trying to "liberate peoples" why aren't we trying to "liberate people" in Africa from repressive regimes?
oil

oil

that's the whole point of this war. just admit it.

Cheers

In order to cheat again someone has to cheat in the first place.
Shall I show the link?
http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html
I think I shall hehe. Think about how possible it is first then consider whether it happened. Don't be closed minded or you'll learn nothing.

If UN has terrorist, if we have a thingy where we don't negociate with terrorist are we hypocrists?

OIL= Operation Iraqi Liberation, duh lol
Actually its profit not oil, originally it was fior oil buy republicans realized that people are too smart for that to work. But haliburton and other corpartions are making billions.

Shall I show the link?
http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html
I think I shall hehe. Think about how possible it is first then consider whether it happened. Don't be closed minded or you'll learn nothing.

If UN has terrorist, if we have a thingy where we don't negociate with terrorist are we hypocrists?

OIL= Operation Iraqi Liberation, duh lol
Actually its profit not oil, originally it was fior oil buy republicans realized that people are too smart for that to work. But haliburton and other corpartions are making billions.

still wondering how could people say that bush didn't cheated, lol.

btw, u r right.
rebuilding iraq will be a good profit

cheers

still wondering how could people say that bush didn't cheated, lol.

cheers

It's real easy.

Bush didn't cheat.
He won every recount.

I voted yes - there is a "war on terror"....... not the won that Bush seems to want us to fight in Iraq. Someone said that the war in Iraq is about oil - I would have to agree. Nothing else makes sense about why the US is there right now.

The reason I voted yes, though is because we (and other nations/people) need to stop terrorism. It is wrong to kill someone just because you can or because they have a different idea than you. Imagine what the world would be like with only one set of ideas? Now imagine it with someone else's set of ideas other than yours......... Would you like the world then? Doubt it.

Ideas are like opinions. Everyone has them. Live with it.

I don't necessarily think the "war on terror" is a facade, I do recongize that it's not a convential war, and I think that idea throws the masses off.

When we close our eyes and think of war, what do we see? We see loads of bloody bodies on a Vietnam-esque battlefield... just one example...

So, we don't see it as conventional, and want to call it something other than war, because that's how see it.

Yes, the War on Terror was a hoax. The War in Iraq and Afghanistan was filmed at Area 51 by actors posing as soldiers. George W. Bush is actually a really well made puppet, created by rogue Democratic scientists bent on making the 2004 Elections as winnable as possible for Kerry. One of these scientists also happened to be French-born, and he is the one responsible for creating most of the animosity between France and America.

In fact, Iraq doesn't even exist. The country of 'Iraq' was invaded by extremist alient squirrels with radioactive laser guns and was destroyed soon afterwards. Where Iraq once was, there is only a giant green bubbling sea of acid. How do they make Iraq look like it is still there? Mirrors, my friends, mirrors.

Well considering the fact that terrorist threaten the free nations of the world I'm gonna have to say that it's real. You can't neggotiate with them. They only responed to force. Wheather or not you like it we are in the middle of world war three. These people are crazy and won't stop until there all dead. Just like the Nazis or finatical Japanese forces of WW2. The problem is they don't have a distinct country like Germany or Japan.

Its this type of vague hyperbole that convinces me this is a false war. If a nation is going to fight a war on another entity then they need to define this entity. e.g -War on the Al-Quida network- , -War on Oppressive Dictators- ."These people", 'the terrorists', 'the evildoers'; those are not definitions. By using vague descriptions the Bush government gives them self licence to attack whoever they want for whatever motivation they feel like.

Dictionary.com says terrorism is: 'the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear'.

If America is serious about fighting terrorism then the number one place to start is with their own policies, by ceasing the use of warfare as a means of acheiving 'goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature'. The worlds major superpower pumping money, resources and young lives into waging open war on an esoteric concept is a serious threat to global stability.

Ideas are like opinions. Everyone has them.


Opinions are like a--holes. Everybody has one, and nobody wants anybody elses. :D

Hmm, yeah, 9/11 wasn't the work of terrorists, it was just a plot by our government to bring us in line by scare tactics. Right.


But I think the point of issue here is 'The War on Terror', not that terrorists exist who would like nothing better to do than destroy the US. They definitely exist, but 'The War on Terror' seems to have little to do with this at all. It seems to be more to do with slaking certain ppl within the Bush admin obession with Iraq, lining the pockets of their friends (i.e. Haliburton), restricting the liberties of US citizens, pushing thru policies that have little to do with terrorists (Parts of the Patriot Act for eg) and generally keeping the US populace on edge in the hope that this will help them win the election (the frequent changes to the 'Terror' alert without ever seeming to give reasons).
If it was a true war on terror, why are there only 11 000 troops in Afganistan (This is a country bigger than France), why are they now planning to withdraw troops from around the world - esp. S.Korea, even though Bush has called N.Korea part of an axis of evil and they are openly trying to manufacture a nuclear weapon? Also taking troops out of Europe - didn't they find a link between some of the hijackers back to Europe, and isn't there a rising anti-west sentiment amongst the growing Muslim polpulace in Europe?
Finally why is Africa being ignored - look at what's been happening there over the past few years, let alone the bombings and attacks by Islamic terrorists in Africa, some targetting US properties and embassies.
Terrorists are real, 'The War on Terror' is false.

No war on terror--because you can't fight a war against a tactic. This is important because as long as the war is on "terror" or "terrorism," it's a resipe for unending war. The war we're fighting, in reality, is on radical Islamists who tend to use terror as their primary tactic--but the war is on the Islamists, not their tactics.

I'm still waiting for Bush and Ridge to come out and blame hurricane Charley on terrorists ...

6)Why fight in the Middle East, almost halfway around the world, where the odds are not in our favor, and fight in Cuba, instead? Not only is it 90 miles offshore. Not only would the odds be heavily in our favor. Moreover, Castro is one of the world's largest narcotics traffickers, a big supporter of terrorism, and an ardent foe of America who still longs for our destruction.
That is simply not true.

What terrorists groups does Castro support?

Also, there is no evidence that Cuba is involved in the narcotics trade. The US, through the CIA, has been involved in more narcotics trafficking than Cuba.

The US-backed warlords in Afghanistan are the biggest global suppliers of heroin.

Posting speculation from right-wing sites or authors isn't a credible argument either.

I quote Martin Luther King, Jr: "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world is my own government." The US is the number one purveyor of violence in the world, and we get hung up on Islamic terrorism. It's just a secondary concern, and it wouldn't exist without American terrorism.

That plagiarizing communist was talking out of his ass, as he usually did.

In his time, the Hutus and Tutsi were doing exactly what they usually do, which is butchering hundreds of thousands of each other.

The Congo was in the midst of a civil war killing tens of thousands. Ditto Ethiopia.

Sudan was in the midst of large scale genocide against Christians.

The French were massacring tens of thousands in Algeria.

Columbia was in civil war. And Brazil. And Guatemala. And Paraguay.

North Korea was brutalizing their people just as they do now. Tens of thousands of deaths a year.

Mao was killing millions.

Indonesia in the midst of killing 500,000.

And the US government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. :rolleyes:

It was Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), not Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).

That plagiarizing communist was talking out of his ass, as he usually did.

In his time, the Hutus and Tutsi were doing exactly what they usually do, which is butchering hundreds of thousands of each other.

The Congo was in the midst of a civil war killing tens of thousands. Ditto Ethiopia.

Sudan was in the midst of large scale genocide against Christians.

The French were massacring tens of thousands in Algeria.

Columbia was in civil war. And Brazil. And Guatemala. And Paraguay.

North Korea was brutalizing their people just as they do now. Tens of thousands of deaths a year.

Mao was killing millions.

Indonesia in the midst of killing 500,000.

And the US government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. :rolleyes:



ok, so why no war against mugabe's regime in Zim?

and why not depose both the Northern and Southern Korean governments? both were/are despotic...

and, if the US government had gone with a view to saving people's lives, you know, if they'd justified their action by an actually effort to help other people's in the world, then a lot of left wingers would struggle to find a problem. if there was more consistency, less focus on profiteering and business (i know; same old story) and more of an effort to actually help mankind, they'd be trusted more. but all that's illegal, not that the US government has any respect for the UN, other nations, the sanctity of human life, the sanctity, for that matter, of anything other than the dollar..

and as for the french murdering algerians: yes, true, so why not invade france and depose the genocidal regime that ran it? or the British regime - responsible for various slaughters in the last 2 decades? why not the imprisonment of ex-governmental war-criminals in each of those three countries, including clinton, reagan, both bushs, thatcher, major and blair? if they're genuinely about benefitting mankind, surely that's a place to start...

the regimes the US has installed, or that have taken power in their wake, in each of the countries it has "liberated" haven't all been too hot, have they?
what about the assassination of Allende in '67 in chile - to be replaced by General Pinochet (only one i can think of off the top of my head, i'm tired). good move.

saddam hussein was evil, yeh, and to say "oh he was no threat to us so we shouldn't have bothered" is pathetic; and the fact that the public could not be rallied around a genuine liberation movement is also a bit sad, but then again, was it a genuine liberation operation?
no. it wasn't.
now i'm not saying i would have supported a war in those circumstances - it'd take a lot to make me support any way; but a war with guarantees that we're fighting for the benefit of the greater populace, and that when it's all over we'll help them, not ourselves, goes part of the way of having me convinced - whether it's legal in the eyes of the UN or not.

i just can't believe that United States, or British, French, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, Italian etc etc etc foreign policies are acting for the common good...


i realise my expression might've been a bit weak in this, so i apologise if anyone misconstrues anything i've said..

But I think the point of issue here is 'The War on Terror', not that terrorists exist who would like nothing better to do than destroy the US. They definitely exist, but 'The War on Terror' seems to have little to do with this at all. It seems to be more to do with slaking certain ppl within the Bush admin obession with Iraq, lining the pockets of their friends (i.e. Haliburton), restricting the liberties of US citizens, pushing thru policies that have little to do with terrorists (Parts of the Patriot Act for eg) and generally keeping the US populace on edge in the hope that this will help them win the election (the frequent changes to the 'Terror' alert without ever seeming to give reasons).
If it was a true war on terror, why are there only 11 000 troops in Afganistan (This is a country bigger than France), why are they now planning to withdraw troops from around the world - esp. N.Korea, even though Bush has called S.Korea part of an axis of evil and they are openly trying to manufacture a nuclear weapon? Also taking troops out of Europe - didn't they find a link between some of the hijackers back to Europe, and isn't there a rising anti-west sentiment amongst the growing Muslim polpulace in Europe?
Finally why is Africa being ignored - look at what's been happening there over the past few years, let alone the bombings and attacks by Islamic terrorists in Africa, some targetting US properties and embassies.
Terrorists are real, 'The War on Terror' is false.

beautifully said.

Interesting, have any basis for this or is it just baseless fox bashing as usual.

i met a guy from Fox in washington in february 2003.
he was the most terrifying man i've ever met, his arrogance was incredible, his belief that George W Bush a) got more national votes than Al Gore, and b) won the state of Florida with no (illegal) interference worried me - i mean, this guy is responsible for informing your nation, and he doesn't know basic facts (none of the election scandal is a real worry to me, though, Gore is no better than Bush, and would not be a better President, and besides, i'm neither American or living in America anywhere...).

he genuinely supported US sponsored terrorism, while being "sickened" by the idea of any other kind of freedom-fighting (they are exactly the same thing, never forget that) - i mean, if you're going to fight a war, like playing a sport: surely you play fair?

oh, no, wait, sorry - scum don't play fair.

is that libellous? if it is, no i wasn't calling the man scum, i was inferring that he has some kind of scum in or on his mind which is warping an otherwise probably beautiful human soul into gaining excitement from the deaths of millions of people...

and in none of this do i wish to imply that Soldiers are themselves inherently evil - some without a doubt are, but for most it's just a job that they hope they come home from. the evil ones are the people who decide these humans should fight other humans to the death.

the regimes the US has installed, or that have taken power in their wake, in each of the countries it has "liberated" haven't all been too hot, have they?
what about the assassination of Allende in '67 in chile - to be replaced by General Pinochet (only one i can think of off the top of my head, i'm tired). good move. List of US supported dictators:

Abacha, General - Nigeria
Aliyev, Heydar - Azerbaijan
Aliyev, Ilham - Azerbaijan
Amin, Idi - Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo -Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio - Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal - Brunei
Botha, P.W. - South Africa
Branco, General Humberto - Brazil
Cedras, Raou l- Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio - Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek - Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo - Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo - El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn - South Vietnam
Doe, General Samue l- Liberia
Duvalier, Francois - Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude - Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King - Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco - Spain
Hassan II - Morocco
Hussein, Saddam - Iraq
Karimov, Islam - Uzbekistan
Marcos, Ferdinand - Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez - El Salvador
Mobutu, Sese Seko - Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel - Panama
Ozal, Turgut - Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza - Iran
Papadopoulos, George - Greece
Park Chung Hee - South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto - Chile
Pol Pot - Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni - Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios - Guatemala
Selassie, Haile - Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira - Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr - Nicaragua
Smith, Ian - Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo - Paraguay
Suharto, General Mohamed - Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas - Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael - Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed - Pakistan

While the war in Iraq is a joke, Our military should have all been after the Taliban. If the priorities would have been correct, Bin Laden would either be dead or in Jail right now.

But as it was, the Bush war profiteering team didn't want to hear any more on Afganistan from the CIA, but rather wanted to focus on Iraq instead. Because you see, they all support terrorism. Many in the bush administration support it through defense industry investments and oil industry investments. A few are Bush(carlyle group), Dick Cheney(Haliburton), and donald rumsfeld(Bechtel). These men are banking big bucks from the war in iraq, not to mention many other men.

The saudi's are also investing in our defense industry, fancy that. They supposedly have nearly a trillion dollars invested in the United States.

List of US supported dictators:


ta, very interesting..
out of interest, how many were installed on the back of a "liberation" the US was involved in, and how many were already in power before relations started?

[I haven't read through the entire thread, so I'm just commenting on the original poll rather than any arguments that may have popped up.]

When someone asks if the war on terror is fake, I tend to wonder what they mean by "war on terror". The war in Iraq was definitely not on terror, so if you mean that it was sold as being "on terror", then yes, it was false. However, I personally tend to recall the war on terror as a now-neglected quest to find Osama bin Laden.

"other" -- the intentions are noble, but at the end of the day we are using the wrong approach because ultimately no one really knows what to do.

And when I say "no one," I really do MEAN "no one" -- I don't think there IS a nation that has come up with an adequate approach to dealing with terrorists. We're still figuring out what to do.

The invasion of Iraq has created more terrorism. Even after 9/11, the Bush administration was more concerned with overthrowing Saddam than dealing with Bin Laden. Iraq had no link to Bin Laden or Islamic terrorism. However, the greed of the Bush administration for oil prevailed over security.

The 'war on terror' is a stupid phrase used to justify an aggressive foreign policy. 9/11 has become a pretext for neo-imperialism.

Please share your thoughts. But do it without flaming and without being sarcastic or a smart-ass.

As I perceive it the crap we get fed by the Bush administration is flaming sarcastic smart-ass talk. Why the double standards?

[QUOTE=Acloeur]
the assassination of Allende in '67 in chile QUOTE]

Just for the record: Allende was killed in 1973, on 9/11 to be exact.
There haven't been any memorial services.

Terrorists are real. The so called War on Terror is a scam. Certain people had all these plans lying around for a long time, and just waited for an opportunity.

[QUOTE=Acloeur]

and as for the french murdering algerians: yes, true, so why not invade france and depose the genocidal regime that ran it? or the British regime - responsible for various slaughters in the last 2 decades? why not the imprisonment of ex-governmental war-criminals in each of those three countries, including clinton, reagan, both bushs, thatcher, major and blair? if they're genuinely about benefitting mankind, surely that's a place to start...


QUOTE]

So what slaughter have the British been responsible for in the last 20 years? Just interested.
Also I was confused to see who ever it was attack Cuba as a source of Terror. If the US realy wanted to help the population of Cuba they would lift all sanctions. As for the war on terror, it's just a handy cover all excuse for any military operation the US feels like taking part in.
And the comment made about pulling troops out of europe when there was a rising Muslim population. US troops would have no right or chance of operating within Europe unless sanctioned by the Gov of that nation. Nations more than capable of looking after thier own internal affairs! Secondly the vast majority of European Muslin are very peacfull and law abiding. We have more 'Christian' terrorist in Europe than we do muslim. But of course they don't target the US they just murder Europeans so that is ok.

[QUOTE=Acloeur]
the assassination of Allende in '67 in chile QUOTE]

Just for the record: Allende was killed in 1973, on 9/11 to be exact.
There haven't been any memorial services. Apparently he fought to the death with an AK-47 supplied to him by Fidel Castro as Pinochet's thugs bombarded the presidential palace.

Just to add my voice to the crowd: terrorists are real, the war against terror is a lie.

It's real easy.

Bush didn't cheat.
He won every recount.
That'S besides the point as Bush made sure many voters were out of the list that should have been on it.

If I disqualify a massive amount of voters that are susceptible to vote against me, of course I'll win the recounts.

Hey, it's not like it's the first ever war on terror.

Apparently he fought to the death with an AK-47 supplied to him by Fidel Castro as Pinochet's thugs bombarded the presidential palace.

Just for the record: they weren't Pinochet's thugs at that moment, it was the US/CIA lending a helping hand to the army. Pinochet was in fact a general of minor military importance who got put into the saddle by Washington as a US puppet afterwards. Then of course the large scale atrocities could commence.

I always did respect Allende for the way he sold his hide.

That'S besides the point as Bush made sure many voters were out of the list that should have been on it.

If I disqualify a massive amount of voters that are susceptible to vote against me, of course I'll win the recounts.


Moreover the recounts were stopped by the (Republican!) federal judges when things started to look up for Gore.

About the system itself: bickering over a couple hundred votes while in absolute numbers Bush gathered about half a million votes less than Gore scored rather high on my personal Kafka index.

Moreover the recounts were stopped by the (Republican!) federal judges when things started to look up for Gore.

They were only looking for Gore because Gore decided to only recount the counties that would help him. And no, they weren't stopped by the Republican judges, the recounts were ruled 7-2 to be illegal and to be stopped. It was ruled 5-4 that it was too late to do any more. Perhaps if Gore had tried to do things correctly the first time, it would've been different. Too bad.

They were only looking for Gore because Gore decided to only recount the counties that would help him. And no, they weren't stopped by the Republican judges, the recounts were ruled 7-2 to be illegal and to be stopped. It was ruled 5-4 that it was too late to do any more. Perhaps if Gore had tried to do things correctly the first time, it would've been different. Too bad.

I'm not sure what 7-2 ruling you're referring to. The order stopping the vote count on December 9 was 5-4 (stated reason: if the vote count had continued, Bush was have suffered "irreparable harm"). I believe the December 12 ruling was also 5-4: that ruling said that no valid recount could be completed by December 12 (particularly because it had been stopped!) I can't find a vote count for the December 4 ruling staying the florida supreme court ruling, so that could have been 7-2.

Later analysis showed that if the entire state had been recounted, Gore would have won. (Why didn't he ask for that? Because David Boies is an overrated idiot.) To be fair, don't forget that Bush's travel budget for the recount was larger than Gore' entire budget for the recount. And don't forget the "Brooks Brothers Mafia", either.

If Bush v. Gore was a legitimate ruling, why doesn't it set precedent? Why was it unsigned?

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi

I'm not sure what 7-2 ruling you're referring to. The order stopping the vote count on December 9 was 5-4 (stated reason: if the vote count had continued, Bush was have suffered "irreparable harm"). I believe the December 12 ruling was also 5-4: that ruling said that no valid recount could be completed by December 12 (particularly because it had been stopped!) I can't find a vote count for the December 4 ruling staying the florida supreme court ruling, so that could have been 7-2.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision late Tuesday, reversed a Florida Supreme Court decision ordering the hand recounts of thousands of votes, a ruling apparently benefiting Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush in the razor-thin election that remains undecided more than a month after Election Day.

"Seven justices of this Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court," according to a 7-2 "per curiam," or unsigned, opinion. "The only disagreement is as to the remedy."


http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/13/scotus.election.03/

I think the CNN article is wrong that the decision was 7-2; the unsigned opinion just states that seven justices felt there was a constitutional problem. I don't remember this being confusing at the time, but I can see that it might have.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/12/supreme.excerpts/

I can't understand how four justices (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter) can dissent from a 7-2 decision.

(Still unaddressed is the "Why no precedent?" issue.)

There was basically two things. As can be seen from your CNN Article:

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. .... The only disagreement is as to the remedy.

Seven of the nine decided that the specific recounts which were going on were bad, five of the nine decided that additional recounts couldn't be carried on.

Seven of the nine decided that the specific recounts which were going on were bad, five of the nine decided that additional recounts couldn't be carried on.

But the actual Bush v. Gore ruling was 5-4; the other justices didn't want the recounts to be stopped. From reading the dissent, I don't see anyone else saying that the court should have taken the case at all.

""The Florida statutory standard is consistent with the practice of the majority of States, which apply either an 'intent of the voter' standard or an "impossible to determine the elector' s choice" standard in ballot recounts." ...

"Admittedly, the use of differing substandards for determining voter intent in different counties employing similar voting systems may raise serious concerns. Those concerns are alleviated, if not eliminated, by the fact that a single impartial magistrate will ultimately adjudicate all objections arising from the recount process."

"Finally, neither in this case, nor in its earlier opinion in Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris ... did the Florida Supreme Court make any substantive change in Florida electoral law. Its decisions were rooted in long-established precedent and were consistent with the relevant statutory provisions, taken as a whole. It did what courts do -- it decided the case before it in light of the legislature' s intent to leave no legally cast vote uncounted."



"The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume.



"If this Court had allowed the State to follow the course indicated by the opinions of its own Supreme Court, it is entirely possible that there would ultimately have been no issue requiring our review, and political tension could have worked itself out in the Congress following the procedure provided in 3 U.S.C. 15. The case being before us, however, its resolution by the majority is another erroneous decision ....

Unlike the majority, I see no warrant for this Court to assume that Florida could not possibly comply with this requirement before the date set for the meeting of electors, December 18."

The only place I see the "seven" justice claim is in the unsigned opinion. I can't reconcile that claim with the dissents as written, nor with the earlier votes.

It's still true that:
1) A 5-4 decision halted the recounts, and another 5-4 decision said that there was no chance to continue them
2) Four of the justices wanted to let Florida continue its recounts
3) The decision was inexplicably (and unprecedently?) non-precedentable

Waaay back, what started this was an allegation that Republican judges stopped the recounts when things started to look bad for Bush. Even if a couple of other judges had questions about the recount standards, it does not look to me like they felt the Supreme Court had the right to interfere and stop the recounts.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

The only place I see the "seven" justice claim is in the unsigned opinion. I can't reconcile that claim with the dissents as written, nor with the earlier votes.
Yes you can. This is at the bottom of the page, a few paragraphs up :

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000).

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

You quoted text which references two dissents; however, four justices (total) agreed with one or more dissents. It's 9-4, not 9-2.

*cough* precedent *cough*

Edit: If you look back through the four dissents, you'll see that even the people who agreed that there was a potential issue don't think the Supreme Court should have been involved in it. The statement in the unsigned opinion is disingenous, and does not rise to the level of a 7-2 opinion.

Shall I show the link?
http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html
OIL= Operation Iraqi Liberation, duh lol

I like that one so much I put it in bold and coloured it!!

Good one BastardSword!! :rolleyes: