I gave you a chance, more than most, and you still are unable to convince me of anything. You just told me to do YOUR research to back-up YOUR points. I'm STILL waiting for you to answer my questions and make your case logically...Can you do that? Otherwise, your posts have no substance, just raves. You're not very convincing of anything. Remember, this is your thread and you haven't said anything. Try again; cite specific, credible information sources to verify what you say. Pretend you are in school and this is a project and you will be graded. You have an opportunity to convince me of something, anything...just make a real case for it.
SHOWMESHOWMESHOWMESHOWMESHOWMESHOWME
BE SPECIFIC!!! What are the links? This is your thread, I'm not doing your research for you.
That brain isn't dead. It's just taken a holiday to write fiction.
Which crimes did you have in mind, brain dead?
You have just that opportunity. Vote the bastards out of office.
You'll have to call them as you see them, and vote accordingly. That's your legacy of previous British governments, supported by the British people, fighting when they felt it was necessary.
I guess if YOU cannot be bothered to supply some links to your sources of information, all YOU will get is ridicule and disagreement. If you wish to sway the beliefs of others, you best show up with more than a knife at a gunfight. Certainly you should bring along something more profound!! than your !stale! !rhetoric!
from the dead brain:
after all we are never likely to benefit from such politically motivated attacks, and indeed such attacks have increased the liklihood of terror attacks being made against us, by perhaps more than a 100 times!
Well, if and/or when these attacks occur, maybe some of us will have better luck than certain others.
TOTAL COP-OUT!!! You refuse to cite even one source. As I said: I'm not doing your research for you. I can't be bothered by your lack of substance. This was your post!!! If you want people to know how the corporate media system operates, SHOW THEM with something credible, anything. So far you have just made unsubstantiated claims. Where EXACTLY do you get your information??? One more time...convince me of ANYTHING!!! I'm not disagreeing with you, you haven't SAID anything to disagree with. I'm not ridiculing you, I'm pointing out shortcomings in your logic. Just cite something, anything to substantiate what you have said without saying: "Well, you're too laze to look up my argument for yourself, therefore, you are satisfied with what you see on CNN and read in the NY times." See: Green-Ford-Pick-up truck scenario. (I don't watch CNN, or read the Times, I'm totally open to anything that someone is able to convince me of.)
if you arent that familiar with recent us history, then i guess you wont know much about the crimes committed by bush senior (a simple google search should provide info if you are interested though!)
the thing is that there is much truth in the contention that if voting changed anything it would be banned, and i cannot think of one instance where a voting for one party or another has altered anything much.
if we continue to accept things like attacking the people of Iraq for purely political reasons, then perhaps we must accept attacks on our own freedoms and liberty in the same way?
Nothing shows. That's because there weren't any. Just a bunch of nonsense by the Web ignoranti. No crimes, no charges "upheld by the international court." Just noise.
Hmmm. Maybe the brain wave activity there has indeed stopped.
You can accept anything you like. Fortunately, that's not a choice I have to accept.
if you have little knowledge of recent us history or merely want to deny the fact that bush snr is the only world leader to have been accused of acts of terror by the world court, then that is not really my problem.
however your head in the sand attitude when it comes to any consideration of the acts of aggression against the people of Iraq, is perhaps just what the us/uk governments need to be able to proceed with similar cowardly attacks, anywhere else they please!
That isn't what you said, brain dead. Here are your foolish words, back to haunt you:
"...seem to remember bush senior being accused of crimes under international law, and these charges being upheld by the international court..........sadly the only thing that occured was that the crimes in question continued, but were also increased!"
No charges upheld in any international court. The courts (World Court, ICC, War Crimes Tribunal, and special courts convened by the UN) don't even bring charges. They hear them.
You're so full of it, brain dead, that you can't even get through a single posting without making up false claims and exposing the fact that you just make all of this up as you go along.
Let's see your charges that were "upheld by the international court." Which court? Which "crimes"?
In your addled perception of reality, it seems likely that you're confusing yourself with attempts by various groups to bring charges against the US and the UK over issues relating to the latest Iraq War. There have been plenty of those. The International Criminal Court received over 40 of them so far, all of which were dismissed as specious, fraudulent, or otherwise unfounded.
Do you want to try again, or are you wising up to the fact that you aren't going to get away with this smoke-blowing anymore? You're making yourself look like a fool, and it only gets worse.
If you have a political point to make, fire away. Just don't believe for a moment that you'll be able to continue your phony accusations concerning international law and courts. You're too lazy and too sloppy even to cover your own tracks.
sorry i was incorrect it was the us that was accused of terrorist actions in
1986, at the time bush snr was head of the cia, and was effectively directing operations!
seem to remember something about someone called oliver north being involved in this business, but as only around 150,000 were killed i guess its small beer in terms of us aggression overseas!
formatting link
the above links to world court archive material, not quite as credible as cnn i know, but does give you an idea!
Ok, I have bookmarked the site and will explore and read but....what are YOU going to convince me of? I believe every source has some value but I like to get the WHOLE story as best as I can and then try to make informed decisions. If I believed everything I see or read I would be naive. I read and watch things from both camps because neither one is presenting anything but their version. So, I assume that your entire answer is: " Everything I believe in and you should believe in is at:
formatting link
and the links there. And, anybody that doesn't believe everything that I believe in is wrong and evil." I have run into people that feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh's web site.
formatting link
are you right and they are wrong? I mean these are WEBSITES by God that prove all this stuff.
BTW, you will never even GUESS what MY beliefs, convictions and opinions are!!! I'll give you a clue: "I don't think this industrial revolution thing was a good idea."
Ok, I have bookmarked the site and will explore and read but....what are YOU going to convince me of? I believe every source has some value but I like to get the WHOLE story as best as I can and then try to make informed decisions. If I believed everything I see or read I would be naive. I read and watch things from both camps because neither one is presenting anything but their version. So, I assume that your entire answer is: " Everything I believe in and you should believe in is at:
formatting link
and the links there. And, anybody that doesn't believe everything that I believe in is wrong and evil." I have run into people that feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh's web site.
formatting link
are you right and they are wrong? I mean these are WEBSITES by God that prove all this stuff.
BTW, you will never even GUESS what MY beliefs, convictions and opinions are!!! I'll give you a clue: "I don't think this industrial revolution thing was a good idea."
Ok, I have bookmarked the site and will explore and read but....what are YOU going to convince me of? I believe every source has some value but I like to get the WHOLE story as best as I can and then try to make informed decisions. If I believed everything I see or read I would be naive. I read and watch things from both camps because neither one is presenting anything but their version. So, I assume that your entire answer is: " Everything I believe in and you should believe in is at:
formatting link
and the links there. And, anybody that doesn't believe everything that I believe in is wrong and evil." I have run into people that feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh's web site.
formatting link
are you right and they are wrong? I mean these are WEBSITES by God that prove all this stuff.
BTW, you will never even GUESS what MY beliefs, convictions and opinions are!!! I'll give you a clue: "I don't think this industrial revolution thing was a good idea."
Yes, you were incorrect. What you refer to now, in a separate case, is the Nicaragua Contra dispute -- a Cold War case, and Bush wasn't even in power.
The World Court ducked around the OAS treaty on that one as best it could, because it wanted to establish a new doctrine that would essentially overrule all treaties that contradicted certain provisions being promoted by the UN. It has largely failed. The international law of treaties remains largely in place.
That being said, you were talking about a case relating to war crimes, and now you are referring to a case that was about "crimes against peace." This is the most controversial and uneven aspect of international law. It has changed substantially since that case you refer to, and it is the least likely to gain universal agreement as an element of permanent international law, in any form.
So, you have no case against Bush II, and there was no case against Bush I. Anything else you want to get off your mind, before you rein in this discussion to what it really is: a debate about the politics of war?
OHMYGOD!!!! We TOTALLY agree on something!!! I think you're preaching to the choir stating that:
((corporate media, that most rely on as a credible source of information, in general so distorts the actual facts surrounding events, that in objective terms much of the information provided is very far from the truth))
I think that this is a generally accepted fact even in this NG if not ALL of the US. Understand that the media is in the entertainment business first, and second they owe their allegience to whoever is going to provide the best access, ratings and betterment of their agenda. We KNOW that!!! All, well, almost all of the US knows that. The "News" is pure editorialism, but at least it's so blatent that people know that they are only being told half the story. I don't know how it is in the UK, but everyone I know (and I know some very intelegent people, I may not be one of them, but I know them) thinks that what the mass media presents is bull.
On WMD...Are there any in Iraq? I don't KNOW! Were WMDs moved? Hidden? One theory is that the Iraqi scientists kept telling Saddam about non-existant stuff. We DO know that chemical weapons were used on the Kurds at one time. I can't prove there are WMDs, and guess what??? You can't PROVE that there aren't!!! 10 years or so and the truths might start comming out. What does worry me is that they had the knowhow and could aid in the poliferation of weapons to people that I trust even less than Saddam. I lost a cousin in the WTC and that gives me some right to distrust these people. Do you see the political machines trying to polarize the public in an election year? It's ALL about politics and power and greed on all sides, and trust me, EVERYONE, even to most liberal do-gooder has an ADGENDA!!! One would be very nieve to think that ANY source of information is un-biased.
Okay, shit-for-brain-dead. I have also marked your highly respected zmag site. There is a tremendous amount to choose from. Since you seem to be so well versed with regards to the reknowned zmzg site, how about pointing up just 4 or 5 specific articles that give some substance to your otherwise unfounded blathering. I seldom read the "corporate" news and watch no television, so I am not going to sift through hundreds of articles looking for info to back YOUR position! You was gonna bring a knife to a gunfight, and instead all you have is a bent fingernail file.
i am glad we seem to agree on something Tom, however if you dont believe in what is generally contended in the corporate media has much to do with the truth, i find it hard to understand exactly why on the balance of all the information available, that you still believe Iraq may have wmds! in terms of corporate media output, it is interesting to note that during a situation such as the attack on the people of Iraq, that the media provides propaganda rather than any objective analysis of the facts to hand! Chomsky and Herman have done some very interesting work on the part played by the media in modern society, which is well worth looking into for anyone wanting to know the reasons behind the lies and distortions that seem so common in much of the output.
finally proliferation of wmds is certainly a very real concern in a world which is becoming increasingly more unstable both politically and economically. but perhaps unleashing 70 ton main battle tanks against Iraqi civilians, and dropping cluster bombs on illiterate Afghan peasants, is possibly not the most effective method of addressing this situation? the thing that will of course result from these cowardly actions, is that the strength and resources of various terrorist groups will be increased immeasurably, and of course further terror attacks on ourselves will be almost certain!
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.