Jusunlee.com Forums
Show all 13 posts from this thread on one page

Jusunlee.com Forums (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/index.php)
- Debate (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=19)
-- Not Focused (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=10884)


Posted by ajy on 02-22-2003 06:38 AM:

Not Focused

This new war on terror, now in very close stages where america is on the verge of declaring war on Iraq, there is still a few questions i ask.

Number one. Osama bin laden. Now 17 months after september 11'th 2001, werent we promised by bush administration that soldiers on "project liberty" would hunt down osama bin laden? After the months of bombing and searching caves in afghanistan, no sign of him. Rumors hes being sheltered in iraq, circulate but no one says anything. Now it seems Bush is focused on saddam hussein as the biggest threat. I say finish your number one priority then move on if neccesary.

Number two. North Korea. It is proven that North Korea is far more advanced in the development of Nuclear missles than Iraq, years ahead. Also known is that by this August, they will have a total of 8 weapons of mass destruction, which are a potent threat to the mainland USA. Now, seeing this, why isnt there a campaign on North Korea? Why is Bush not shedding as much light on this situation as before on Osama bin laden, or Saddam Hussein currently? And the worst part is that North korea may become a nuclear super market. And NK will most likely sell to known terrorists.

Number three. Why Now? The United Nations has not agreed with the United States potential actions on Iraq, and France and Germany, and others have stated they will not give resource if there was a war. If the UN doesnt approve of a major millitary action, then why does George bush administration want to so bad? For Iraq's Oil? Or is it just because Saddam Hussein harbors terrorist activity, supports and finances it? And it has even been stated that Iraq is not acquainted with al qaeda, so why are we focused on iraq now, and not afghanistan still? Or North Korea in the bigger picture?

These are all questions that are beeing blinded to use. For the reasons that we are not supposed to know everything. Personally, i think that Bush's reasons for a war on Iraq are not adecquate. Because Hussein plotted the assasination of George Bush Senior in the earlyy 90's, is it really a reason to push a major millitary effort, potentially sparing thousands of young americans lives?


Posted by Alchemist on 02-22-2003 04:00 PM:

Nemo!!


Posted by krnxswat on 02-22-2003 04:50 PM:

"why dont you turn off your computer, and research, and stop asking useless questions"

__________________
immagijibae: seons a hoeeeeeee, he wears them g-strings, and i also knowwwww, they hurt his dinga-lings~ la l alalala~ nanannan~ oh~ seons a hoeeeeee, he wears them g-strings..............
immagijibae: liiiiiiiiiiiiiike my new 1-minute-made-up song???????


Posted by ajy on 02-22-2003 05:44 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by krnxswat
"why dont you turn off your computer, and research, and stop asking useless questions"


because i didnt ask a question that can be so simply answered, like you did. face it you have no point

-and your attempt to get back at me, pathetic and pointless-


Posted by KeN VeRsUs RyU on 02-22-2003 06:13 PM:

no.

__________________

xanga.com/an1_mixtape


Posted by ajy on 02-22-2003 06:41 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KeN VeRsUs RyU
no.


if youre not going to elaborate, or have a point dont post your spam bs


Posted by .aS.|5p!7f!|23 on 02-22-2003 06:50 PM:

personally ive grown to hate bush, so i believe that its somewhat daddy issues, but not everything bush is doing is coming directly from him. his cabinet is responsible for some of the policies bush has.


Posted by krnxswat on 02-22-2003 07:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by AjY 2k
if youre not going to elaborate, or have a point dont post your spam bs


wow. interesting. since when did you stop posting pointless pictures and spamming?

__________________
immagijibae: seons a hoeeeeeee, he wears them g-strings, and i also knowwwww, they hurt his dinga-lings~ la l alalala~ nanannan~ oh~ seons a hoeeeeee, he wears them g-strings..............
immagijibae: liiiiiiiiiiiiiike my new 1-minute-made-up song???????


Posted by .aS.|5p!7f!|23 on 02-22-2003 08:19 PM:

speaking of spamming seon ho.. jpjp


Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 02-23-2003 12:32 AM:

what really damages the credibility of the War Hawk approach on war is that large parts of the "unmistakable" file of evidence that was provided by Tony Blair is plagiarized.
--------
Downing St dossier plagiarised
Iraq

Published: 06-Feb-2003
By: Jonathan Rugman

The government's carefully co-ordinated propaganda offensive took an embarrassing hit tonight after Downing Street was accused of plagiarism.

The target is an intelligence dossier released on Monday and heralded by none other than Colin Powell at the UN yesterday...

On Monday, the day before the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell addressed the UN, Downing Street published its latest paper on Iraq.

It gives the impression of being an up to the minute intelligence-based analysis - and Mr Powell was fulsome in his praise.

Published on the Number 10 web site, called "Iraq - Its Infrastructure of Concealment Deception and Intimidation", it outlines the structure of Saddam's intelligence organisations.

But it made familiar reading to Cambridge academic Glen Rangwala. It was copied from an article last September in a small journal: the Middle East Review of International Affairs.

It's author, Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student from Monterey in California. Large sections do indeed appear, verbatim.

A section, for example, six paragraphs long, on Saddam's Special Security Organisation, the exact same words are in the Californian student's paper.

In several places Downing Street edits the originals to make more sinister reading.

Number 10 says the Mukhabarat - the main intelligence agency - is "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq".

The original reads: "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq."

And the provocative role of "supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes" has a weaker, political context in the original: "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes."

Even typographic mistakes in the original articles are repeated.

Of military intelligence, al-Marashi writes in his original paper:

"The head of military intelligence generally did not have to be a relative of Saddam's immediate family, nor a Tikriti. Saddam appointed, Sabir Abd Al-Aziz Al-Duri as head..." Note the comma after appointed.

Downing Street paraphrases the first sentence: "Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head during the 1991 Gulf War."

This second line is cut and pasted, complete with the same grammatical error.

plagiarism is regarded as intellectual theft.
....
more at: http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/0...06_dossier.html
---------
what is interesting is that the "unmistakable evidence" that was directly pasted into the file was gathered by a postgrad student, not by Britain's own intelligence agencies (e.g. MI6). In fact, unrest is growing among these organizations and MI6 released a statement, asserting that there is no solid evidence that implicates the Iraqis.

__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)


Posted by kryogenix on 02-23-2003 01:13 AM:

i guess its hard to stay focused when you've got several things to deal with. i'm confused with the fact that our first ally, france (revolutionary war), isn't supporting the US while Britian, the US's first enemy (also revolutionary war), is backing us up all the way. Ok, all that is past behind us, but allies are supposed to back each other up. if binladen is sill alive, i'm almost sure that iraq is holding him within their borders. if we don't fight back...


Posted by Crazydeb8ter on 02-23-2003 01:36 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by kryogenix
i guess its hard to stay focused when you've got several things to deal with. i'm confused with the fact that our first ally, france (revolutionary war), isn't supporting the US while Britian, the US's first enemy (also revolutionary war)


uh you're making connections that are far too ancient to consider. Look to more recent times and you'll discover that France has been pro-European, and anti-american since the 1950's (which explains why France withdrew from NATO- rejoined ~1992- and also supported the formation of the EU). The british have maintained relatively amicable relations with the US since the mid 1800's.

quote:
Originally posted by kryogenix
but allies are supposed to back each other up


Yes, in order to achieve a common goal. Now, this doesn't mean "drop all sense of individual thought, we must follow them blindly." France and Germany are still our allies, but they disagree with our approach to achieve the goal.

quote:
Originally posted by kryogenix
if binladen is sill alive, i'm almost sure that iraq is holding him within their borders.


And being under the burden of proof, you must give some viable evidence supporting your claim.

__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)


Posted by Alchemist on 02-23-2003 02:53 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Crazydeb8ter
And being under the burden of proof, you must give some viable evidence supporting your claim.


to


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:58 AM.
Show all 13 posts from this thread on one page