Babs Posted September 19, 2004 Author #26 Share Posted September 19, 2004 You're coming in loud and clear, joc...I hear you and totally agree! Some more information on the UN and the Oil-for-Food Scandal. here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted September 20, 2004 #27 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Aren't you forgetting that the War is already happening? There has already been a huge sacrafice by countries to help the US....the UK for one being your biggest allies....Its so easy to forget this isn't it. This thread it seems to me is a lame attempt at bashing European countries not the UN. Nice try. Lottie, I have the utmost respect for the UK. I also remember how much flak Tony Blair got when he supported Bush in going to Iraq. Specifically, I am talking about France and Germany. The UN was shown to be impotent mainly by a few 'European countries'. France and Germany. I mean your obssessed with this oil for food issue that is just a side issue. World opinion of bush was just as bad when he refused to sign the Kypto agreement, because of fat cats in america that were bankrolling his republican party. I am not obsessed with anything. France and Germany were obsessed with the Oil for Food Program not Bush. And the Kyoto Accord? It was a scam too! Everyone wants to scam the great big old Uncle Sam and then when we won't allow it, everyone cries and pouts and goes off to their little corner and sucks there thumbs. Gotta stand tall and firm in this age we are in Wun or the bad 'uns will do ya in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted September 20, 2004 #28 Share Posted September 20, 2004 I did some independent research on PIPA, and I can find nothing that discredits them as an organization with an agenda, hidden or otherwise. In fact, the strongest evidence of bias is the fact that they're partially funded by Ben & Jerry's, and we all know what a bunch of treehugging liberal wackos they are. 270555[/snapback] Regarding the article Permakid linked about PIPA, I don’t think it’s difficult to understand what their agenda is. This link is a page on their website, which is about who in politics served in the military. Every democrat mentioned(13 “prominent democrats”) served in the military, many of them earning distinguished medals. Out of 20 “prominent republicans” listed, only one served in the military, and many others are labeled as ‘avoided the draft’. Further down the same page are numerous bashings of republicans, and not a single democrat bashing. This link talks about the 2000 presidential vote theft done by the republicans to propel Bush to the Whitehouse. I’m not going to list the others, as this will get redundant, but the list of various pages are listed on the left side of any page on the website. On the right side of the page are links to other like-minded websites that are against the war and other anti-republican issues. So to say this site has no agenda is nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celumnaz Posted September 20, 2004 #29 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Holy guacamole!!! I finally went to that site, and no kidding!! Glaringly obvious the bias there. Talk about misinformation and telling only one side... sheesh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted September 20, 2004 Author #30 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Hmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted September 21, 2004 #31 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Holy guacaole, Celumnaz? Seriously, where have I heard that before? It's driving me crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Permakid Posted September 23, 2004 #32 Share Posted September 23, 2004 As most of you already know, I am leaving the UM. I had planned to do so a few days ago, but an ongoing PM conversation keeps pulling me back. Anyhoo, I'll be out of here very soon. All the best to you guys! So to say this site has no agenda is nonsense Homer, I got your PM about this thread. You obviously didn't read my links because you completely misunderstood what I was talking about. I never claimed that news story was from an unbiased site. Rather I claimed that the study (on which the story was based) originally came from an unbiased source (PIPA). Go back and read my previous posts and you'll understand what I am talking about. Babs and Celumnaz - It's people like you who make debating important issues in forums practically pointless. It seems you only pay attention to those things that support whatever you already believe and ignore anything that contradicts your opinion. This thread is a good example because you obviously didn't read my posts either. Way to be open-minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celumnaz Posted September 23, 2004 #33 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Ok then. Why are they misconceptions? They're already coming from an angle of falsehood, and PIPA is Definately biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted September 23, 2004 #34 Share Posted September 23, 2004 As most of you already know, I am leaving the UM. I had planned to do so a few days ago, but an ongoing PM conversation keeps pulling me back. Anyhoo, I'll be out of here very soon. All the best to you guys!... Homer, I got your PM about this thread. Permakid, I’ve PM’d you once, and that was a reply to your PM to me A quote from the article that concerns me is Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found The truth is evidence has been found, but it’s just not conclusive Another quote that concerns me is Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%). Despite statements by Richard Clarke, David Kay, Hans Blix and others, few Americans perceive most experts as saying the contrary. As far as being misinformed prior to the war, we should keep in mind of what we knew for certain are actual facts. It’s a fact that Hussein was a vicious dictator. It’s a fact that Iraq, under Hussein, has killed hundreds of thousands of people utilizing WMD. It’s a fact that Iraq had a WMD program prior to the 1st Gulf War, which could have been activated. It’s a fact that Hussein’s own son-in-law, General Hussein Kamal, defected and confessed of Iraq’s WMD program. It’s a fact that Khidhir Hamza, the former head of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, also defected and confessed of Iraq’s WMD program. It’s a fact that Iraq violated the sovereign borders of Kuwait by their invasion and attempted annexation. It’s a fact that U.N. inspectors were supervising the destruction of illegal Al Samoud 2 missiles. It’s a fact that Iraq has violated at least 10 U.N. resolutions, spanning almost 12 years(Iraq has agreed to these resolutions as a condition of ending the 1st Gulf War) As far as believing the Hussein-9/11 connection, I’m not arguing that since I’ve never fully believed the connection anyway. I supported the war against Iraq for other reasons. As far as Hussein directly supporting terrorists, you have to be a fool to think he didn’t. As far as Hussein specifically supporting Al Qaeda, I have no idea, and never argued for or against that. Like I said, I support the war for other reasons. Facts we know since the war has started: It’s a fact that a vicious dictator has been removed It’s a fact that mass graves have been found It’s a fact that any possibility of a WMD program has been eliminated. Certainly there are many facts that stress the negatives, such as the ongoing bloodshed by the cowardly terrorists, but if our allies would just join together to combat them, instead of finding out who was misinformed, it would make winning this war more achievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted September 23, 2004 Author #35 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Babs and Celumnaz- It's people like you who make debating important issues in forums practically pointless. It seems you only pay attention to those things that support whatever you already believe and ignore anything that contradicts your opinon. This thread is a good example because you obviously didn't read my posts either. Way to be open-minded. I am not responding to you because you have pm'ed me nasty messages. I blocked the pm and then, out-of-the-blue about 2 weeks ago, you emailed me another nasty message. This was before this thread even began. I have discussed this with the moderator and the moderator agreed that it was the thing to do. Not respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted September 24, 2004 Author #36 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Homer wrote: As far as Hussein directly supporting terrorists, you'd have to be a fool to think he didn't. So true. It's sitting there right in your face...logic. And, Homer, when you said that you have other reasons for supporting the war Bravo! So do I and many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted September 24, 2004 Author #37 Share Posted September 24, 2004 "Watching the U.N. Oil-for-Food Watchdog"...another excellent article. here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted October 6, 2004 Author #38 Share Posted October 6, 2004 "It was about as leaky as you can get", Shaps said, "Almost every transaction may have been a rip-off" that compromised the UN and allowed Hussein to make money. ....expected to detail how Hussein allegedly bought $1 billion worth of weapons systems using money generated by the Food-for-Oil program. here ........and the story continues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now