What do you believe in¿
- Thread starter junglestylz
- Start date
if they really found all that in such a threatening manner, then why did they officailly admit that they did not fing WMD? your points are correct, they found all that and they did all that, but you have to see they weight of the findings.
those trucks they found and those answers they got from scientists, when they were all pointing at the direction you describe, do you really believe the government would admit defeat at that particular point while the perfect proof and argument lies in their hands? i am more than sure that this would not happen.
the stuff is there and they did that etc....all in all there is nothing found that is WMD. all the speeches here by you and all conclusions made are just wishfull thinking. someone who says i know that they can be done that way and they need that and they did it there and therefor it is so is just autocratic. that person really thinks to know more and better then a whole worls of intelligance agencies and governments.
those trucks they found and those answers they got from scientists, when they were all pointing at the direction you describe, do you really believe the government would admit defeat at that particular point while the perfect proof and argument lies in their hands? i am more than sure that this would not happen.
the stuff is there and they did that etc....all in all there is nothing found that is WMD. all the speeches here by you and all conclusions made are just wishfull thinking. someone who says i know that they can be done that way and they need that and they did it there and therefor it is so is just autocratic. that person really thinks to know more and better then a whole worls of intelligance agencies and governments.
![[rofl]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_rofl.gif "ROFL [rofl]"){kind=icon}
each and every topic can lead to the war debate.![[V]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_disapprove.gif "Disapprove [V]"){kind=icon}
Your right in the regard of "beating a dead horse". And I apologize for being so passionate, however when people spew their hatred for this country while earning a living and being free from oppression because of this country, basing all their beliefs on speculation and media hype I feel compelled to correct them. I will henceforth cease from posting regarding this topic. (maybe, I'll try, I hope, umm maybe one more?)
so why did they admit they did not find WMD while it was sitting in their custody? what is your answer? i think it is just not big enough for WMD or just not good enough or just not well equipped enough or just not cheap enough or what so ever reason. hell i don't know. I just know that no government will admit a possible mistake while proof for their action is in their hands! that is logic in my eyes.
They also stated that since the original disarmament they had not done any researche into the use of weapons of mass destruction. The lied about that when we found the delivery systems. It was sitting right in front of them then. If they were to fess up about having them it would lead to the loss of ninety percent of their allies. Nobody would be on their side if they were breaking the rules set in the Geneva convention.
It is going to take a death from Sarin gas to convince everybody that they do have them. The stated that they have not yet found weapons of mass destruction. The also said that they had found the very specific tools and people to make chemical and biological weapons. Just because they haven't found the gas doesn't mean that it isn't there.
When the ACLU, through their lawsuits decided that the mentally ill could not be held against their will unless they had committed a crime or were an imminent danger to themselves or others they were released to the street because that is what they wanted. Reagan had nothing to do with it. I spent a lot of time in my legal career dealing with this issue and police. I can provide you with mountains of document, I still have much of the legal briefs, studies and other materials pertaining to the issue.
Also there are numerous sources for homeless and mentally challenged people, most chose not to use them. There is no excuse for them to be homeless and I personally have helped many “homeless” find the resources available for them.
Usually there are three types of homeless person, mentally challenged, teen runaways, and just plain I don’t choose to live in a home persons. The later I have no sympathy for, the teens reasoning is to numerous to go into, but then again the resources for them are abundant, and the mentally ill we have already addressed.
Also there are numerous sources for homeless and mentally challenged people, most chose not to use them. There is no excuse for them to be homeless and I personally have helped many “homeless” find the resources available for them.
Usually there are three types of homeless person, mentally challenged, teen runaways, and just plain I don’t choose to live in a home persons. The later I have no sympathy for, the teens reasoning is to numerous to go into, but then again the resources for them are abundant, and the mentally ill we have already addressed.
The war was justified with American claims that Saddam has "Weapons of Mass Desctruction". These weapons were the basis for the war and nothing else. Some of you are saying that even if he didn't have them the war was the right thing. WRONG!
America, like any other country, has no right to invade other countries solely based on how they "feel" about its government. Our government says that no one should be found guilty beyong a resonable doubt. We had to be sure exactly where the weapons were before we attacked Iraq. We had to had real evidence of their threat. And so far everything points to the fact that U.S. had no idea of what they were looking for, acted prematurely and tries to justify their actions by saying that now the country can enjoy true "democracy".
We are now trying to say that the war was not about WMD but about "freedom." But freedom is based on sociological interests, values, and beliefs... something we have no right to put on any other country. Even though some may see that we are "the World Power", we have no right to "clean the house" that isn't ours and does not pose an immidiate threat.
As the world sees it now, United States poses greater threat to the world security than any other country in the world. Without the support of all main countries of the world nothing military should be done unless we are being directly attacked.
Some people say that after 9/11 we have the right to invade other countries with different standards than ours and those that begining to build weapons. The fact is, United States has the largest collection of WMD than any other country in the world.
Have you head this: "Iraq had used WMD in the past... they are a threat...".
You remember the "Manhattan Project" during the 1940's that build nuclear bombs and killed nearly have a million people? Was Russia justified of attacking U.S. during that time because we were secretly developing WMD and WERE going to use them?
United States used WMD more than any other country in the world. What U.S. is trying to do is to supress other governments that are trying to develop WMD. The fact is, this technology will eventually spead through every country and U.S. would not be able to stop their production and distribution. This is the point that U.S. will fall from actions of terrorists that will strike back for every unlawful invasion U.S. conducted when it thoughts it was fighting terror... U.S. is causing terror by pointing majority of countries against itself. Those countries are not able to do anything about it.. but as technology spreads U.S. would not be able to control it... and no "Homeland Security" plan made up by Bush Administration would help this country.
I could go on and on... but my fingers are tired and I think this is the longest post I ever wrote. Generaly I was pro-government until this administration.. but things had changed.![[:(!]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_angry.gif "Angry [:(!]")
America, like any other country, has no right to invade other countries solely based on how they "feel" about its government. Our government says that no one should be found guilty beyong a resonable doubt. We had to be sure exactly where the weapons were before we attacked Iraq. We had to had real evidence of their threat. And so far everything points to the fact that U.S. had no idea of what they were looking for, acted prematurely and tries to justify their actions by saying that now the country can enjoy true "democracy".
We are now trying to say that the war was not about WMD but about "freedom." But freedom is based on sociological interests, values, and beliefs... something we have no right to put on any other country. Even though some may see that we are "the World Power", we have no right to "clean the house" that isn't ours and does not pose an immidiate threat.
As the world sees it now, United States poses greater threat to the world security than any other country in the world. Without the support of all main countries of the world nothing military should be done unless we are being directly attacked.
Some people say that after 9/11 we have the right to invade other countries with different standards than ours and those that begining to build weapons. The fact is, United States has the largest collection of WMD than any other country in the world.
Have you head this: "Iraq had used WMD in the past... they are a threat...".
You remember the "Manhattan Project" during the 1940's that build nuclear bombs and killed nearly have a million people? Was Russia justified of attacking U.S. during that time because we were secretly developing WMD and WERE going to use them?
United States used WMD more than any other country in the world. What U.S. is trying to do is to supress other governments that are trying to develop WMD. The fact is, this technology will eventually spead through every country and U.S. would not be able to stop their production and distribution. This is the point that U.S. will fall from actions of terrorists that will strike back for every unlawful invasion U.S. conducted when it thoughts it was fighting terror... U.S. is causing terror by pointing majority of countries against itself. Those countries are not able to do anything about it.. but as technology spreads U.S. would not be able to control it... and no "Homeland Security" plan made up by Bush Administration would help this country.
I could go on and on... but my fingers are tired and I think this is the longest post I ever wrote. Generaly I was pro-government until this administration.. but things had changed.
Last edited:
I did not say that Reagan was to blame for the homeless problem (although one could probably make a case, and many have, for a correlation to some of his policies, but I digress). Rather, I said that the statements regarding the homeless choosing to be so were similar to the statements regarding the welfare queens that were made in the Reagan-era.
In any event, I have not seen anything to suggest the simple causal connection that you ascribe to some ACLU civil rights lawsuits (case cites please, and I don't mean that to be argumentative, counsel, but rather because I am curious and don't want to spend the cash on Westlaw to find it).
There may well be a correlation there, but as you know, correlation and cause are not the same thing. Further, I doubt that your conservative values are consistent with an expanded governmental power to commit individuals, but that doesn't stop most conservatives from championing big government when it comes to law enforcement and building prisons.
Certainly, some people refuse the help that is available. That does not mean that help is available to all. Homeless programs are generally administered on the County level. Fiscal policy being what it is, and the economy being what it is, these types of social programs often find themselves on the chopping block. I have never seen a homeless shelter that had a surplus of cash, nor have I seen a County Agency dedicated to the homeless or mentally ill with an excess of resources. (And I represent government on a variety of cases, even against the ACLU on occasion, and have many contacts in that area, family members who run mental health centers, friends who run Vet centers, etc. Indeed, I have a cousin in your state who represents migrant workers.)
I also note that the social programs you seem to champion now seem to be similar to the general 'social programs' that I have heard you rip in the past as examples of wasteful, liberal spending. You can't have it both ways. If we are going to provide the social programs, and I think we should, we have to pay for them. In the long run I think it is far cheaper to address a problem on the front end rather than at the end, when we have to imprison them or pay for their emergency room bills. But again, that sounds like liberal thinking. I guess I just watch too much CNN? And while I'm on the subject of your favorite whipping boy, the liberal media, do you at least concede that Fox News has a conservative ideology?
In closing, perhaps the biggest problem with the homeless is how little we really know about the scope of the problem. Since they don't have addresses, it is hard to keep track of how many there are. Some estimates place them at 1-2 Million in this Country. Some far less.
In any event, I have not seen anything to suggest the simple causal connection that you ascribe to some ACLU civil rights lawsuits (case cites please, and I don't mean that to be argumentative, counsel, but rather because I am curious and don't want to spend the cash on Westlaw to find it).
There may well be a correlation there, but as you know, correlation and cause are not the same thing. Further, I doubt that your conservative values are consistent with an expanded governmental power to commit individuals, but that doesn't stop most conservatives from championing big government when it comes to law enforcement and building prisons.
Certainly, some people refuse the help that is available. That does not mean that help is available to all. Homeless programs are generally administered on the County level. Fiscal policy being what it is, and the economy being what it is, these types of social programs often find themselves on the chopping block. I have never seen a homeless shelter that had a surplus of cash, nor have I seen a County Agency dedicated to the homeless or mentally ill with an excess of resources. (And I represent government on a variety of cases, even against the ACLU on occasion, and have many contacts in that area, family members who run mental health centers, friends who run Vet centers, etc. Indeed, I have a cousin in your state who represents migrant workers.)
I also note that the social programs you seem to champion now seem to be similar to the general 'social programs' that I have heard you rip in the past as examples of wasteful, liberal spending. You can't have it both ways. If we are going to provide the social programs, and I think we should, we have to pay for them. In the long run I think it is far cheaper to address a problem on the front end rather than at the end, when we have to imprison them or pay for their emergency room bills. But again, that sounds like liberal thinking. I guess I just watch too much CNN? And while I'm on the subject of your favorite whipping boy, the liberal media, do you at least concede that Fox News has a conservative ideology?
In closing, perhaps the biggest problem with the homeless is how little we really know about the scope of the problem. Since they don't have addresses, it is hard to keep track of how many there are. Some estimates place them at 1-2 Million in this Country. Some far less.
Number one, the germans were the world kings at using chemical weapons and don't forget that. During WW1, more chenmical weapons were used than the rest of history combined.
Number two, Iraq had already used Chemical weapons in the act of war during the first Gulf war.
Number three, Can't help but to see the irony in the fact that the RUSSIANS, produced more biological weapons in a 20 year span than the entire planet in 50 years.
Number four, the use of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki was warranted. You forget that the attack on Pearl Harbor was completely unwarranted.
Number five, how could you honestly say that we don't have the right to step in and protect the other people of the planet. When we had a joint effort to erradicate smallpox we should have stayed to ourselves and said screw the people that don't have enough money. That would be the equivalent of letting tyrants remain in power to kill off hundreds of thousands of innocent people¿
Number six, we did not attack after 9/11 based on the fact that those countries had different points of view than us. We attacked because they were KNOWN to be harboring terrorists that killed off 3,000 civilians. If their point of view is that every american deserves to die, then yes, we should kill all that have that mindset.
Number two, Iraq had already used Chemical weapons in the act of war during the first Gulf war.
Number three, Can't help but to see the irony in the fact that the RUSSIANS, produced more biological weapons in a 20 year span than the entire planet in 50 years.
Number four, the use of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki was warranted. You forget that the attack on Pearl Harbor was completely unwarranted.
Number five, how could you honestly say that we don't have the right to step in and protect the other people of the planet. When we had a joint effort to erradicate smallpox we should have stayed to ourselves and said screw the people that don't have enough money. That would be the equivalent of letting tyrants remain in power to kill off hundreds of thousands of innocent people¿
Number six, we did not attack after 9/11 based on the fact that those countries had different points of view than us. We attacked because they were KNOWN to be harboring terrorists that killed off 3,000 civilians. If their point of view is that every american deserves to die, then yes, we should kill all that have that mindset.
![[mad]](/images/smilies/mad.png "Mad [mad]")
[target] ![[hatchet]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_hatchet.gif "Hatchet [hatchet]"){kind=icon}
Push, GuessGirl, and Hitman:
It's good of you to have a passionate opinion. But in your zealous defence of your beliefs, remember that blindly and dogmatically clinging to your position is what causes wars in the first place. With that, I have a question and a thought for you: If WMD had been found, would it change your position on the occupation of Iraq?
A dark night, a lonely street. You are approached by a man that claims to have a gun. He demands your money and valuables. As you are handing them over, a police office drives by, he sees the situation and stops. You yell for help, calling out that your assailant has a gun. The man turns to face the Police officer, who draws his weapon. The mugger reaches under his coat, the officer fires, the would be thief is killed. Your life is spared, and your valuables are returned to you. Do you care if the man really had a gun, or if he was bluffing? Or would you prefer that officer kept driving?
Justifaction for action is more often the precieved, than the actual threat.
And on the topic of Equal Opportinity -
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EQUAL OPPORTUNITY!
It's good of you to have a passionate opinion. But in your zealous defence of your beliefs, remember that blindly and dogmatically clinging to your position is what causes wars in the first place. With that, I have a question and a thought for you: If WMD had been found, would it change your position on the occupation of Iraq?
A dark night, a lonely street. You are approached by a man that claims to have a gun. He demands your money and valuables. As you are handing them over, a police office drives by, he sees the situation and stops. You yell for help, calling out that your assailant has a gun. The man turns to face the Police officer, who draws his weapon. The mugger reaches under his coat, the officer fires, the would be thief is killed. Your life is spared, and your valuables are returned to you. Do you care if the man really had a gun, or if he was bluffing? Or would you prefer that officer kept driving?
Justifaction for action is more often the precieved, than the actual threat.
And on the topic of Equal Opportinity -
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EQUAL OPPORTUNITY!
nice example and for that occasion described you are very right. but i think that you can't compare a burglar at a lonely street with the happenings in a whole world.
for your example you are right and i would be happy but this is the whole world and some higher standards should apply. it is a different picture.
for your example you are right and i would be happy but this is the whole world and some higher standards should apply. it is a different picture.
![[rolleyes]](/images/smilies/rolleyes.png "Roll Eyes (Sarcastic) [rolleyes]")